Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-10-02 Agenda Packet FRED A. WILSON City Manager MICHAEL E. GATES City Attorney ROBIN ESTANISLAU City Clerk ALISA CUTCHEN City Treasurer AGENDA Monday, October 02, 2017 CITY COUNCIL/PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 4:00 PM – Closed Session 6:00 PM - Regular Meeting Council Chambers - 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 http://www.huntingtonbeachca.gov MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL BARBARA DELGLEIZE Mayor MIKE POSEY PATRICK BRENDEN Mayor Pro Tem Councilmember JILL HARDY WILLIAM O’CONNELL Councilmember Councilmember ERIK PETERSON LYN SEMETA Councilmember Councilmember MEETING ASSISTANCE NOTICE - AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act the following services are available to members of our community who require special assistance to participate in City Council meetings. If you require special assistance, 48-hour prior notification will enable the city to make reasonable arrangements. To make arrangements for an assisted listening device (ALD) for the hearing impaired, American Sign Language interpreters, a reader during the meeting and/or large print agendas, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at (714) 536-5227, or request assistance from the Sergeant-at-Arms at the meeting. CITY COUNCIL/PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY The City Council/Public Financing Authority of the City of Huntington Beach will regularly convene in joint session on the first and third Monday of each month for the purpose of considering agenda items. The Huntington Beach Successor Agency, Housing Authority, Parking Authority and Civic Improvement Corporation are also agencies on which the Council serves as members. On each agenda these agencies may have items scheduled. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA The City Council agenda and supporting documentation is made available for public review during normal business hours in the Office of the City Clerk, 2000 Main Street immediately following distribution of the agenda packet to a majority of the City Council. Packet delivery typically takes plan on W ednesday afternoons prior to the regularly scheduled meeting on Monday. The agenda packet is posted on the city’s website at http://www.huntingtonbeachca.gov/Government/agendas/. Questions on agenda items may be directed to the City Clerk’s Office at (714) 536-5227. AUDIO/VIDEO ACCESS TO CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS City Council meetings are televised live on cable TV Channel 3, and can be viewed via live or archived web cast at http://www.huntingtonbeachca.gov/Government/agendas/. SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Staff and members of the public have the opportunity to submit information related to an agenda item following distribution of the agenda packet to the City Council. This information is identified as “Supplemental Communication” and is assembled into a packet by the City Clerk on the day of the City Council meeting. The Brown (Open Meetings) Act requires that copies of Supplemental Communication be made available to the public immediately upon distribution of material to a majority of the City Council. Communication received by any individual at the meeting will be made available to the public in the City Clerk’s Office the following morning. AWARDS AND PRESENTATIONS Awards, presentations, and proclamations made by the Mayor on behalf of the City. The Public Information Office coordinates the arrangements with the Mayor and submits a list of presentations through the City Manager’s Office. WEB ACCESS: **REMINDER** Live Broadcast and audio and video archives can be accessed at http://huntingtonbeach.granicus.com As a courtesy to those in attendance, please silence your cell phones and pagers HB -1- PUBLIC COMMENTS This is the time of the meeting for the City Council to receive comments from the public regarding items of interest or agenda items not scheduled for Public Hearing. Pursuant to the Brown (Open Meetings) Act, the City Council may not enter into discussion regarding items not on the City Council agenda. Members of the public who wish to speak to a member of the Council on an item not on the agenda may consider setting up an individual appointment by contacting the Council's Administrative Assistant at 714-536-5553. The following statement applies to any public exchange of comments during City Council meetings: “The City Council strives to treat members of the public with respect. Comments or concerns provided by the public shall be done in a civil and respectful manner. Any public comments that are discriminatory, defamatory or otherwise not protected speech, whether as to race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or any other protected classification, will not be considered by the City Council and may be a basis for the Mayor to interrupt the public comment. In addition, any such public comments will not be consented to, agreed to, ascribed to, or otherwise adopted by the City Council in its considerations, deliberations, discussions, and findings regarding any matter before it tonight. The City Council provides this public opportunity for free speech, but the City Council categorically rejects comments from anyone, including the public, that are of a discriminatory nature, and such comments will not inform the City Council’s decision.” To participate in Public Comments, pink Request to Speak forms are available at the Chambers entrance and are collected by the Sergeant at Arms. Each speaker is allowed 3 minutes, and time may not be donated to another speaker. COUNCIL COMMITTEE / APPOINTMENTS / LIAISON REPORTS AND ALL AB 1234 DISCLOSURE REPORTING This agenda item allows Councilmembers to make announcements regarding Council committees, appointments or liaison reports, and all individuals as appropriate to disclose any conferences, training, seminars, etc. attended at the Agency’s expense, per Government Code §53232.3(d). Lists of the conferences, training, seminars, and other activities generally attended by the City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, City Clerk, and City Treasurer are included as appendices to the City Budget. The budget is available on the city’s website at http://www.huntingtonbeachca.gov/Government/budget_information/. Exceptions to these lists have been submitted as a report to the City Clerk for inclusion in the record of this meeting.. PUBLIC HEARING Public Hearings allow citizens to speak in favor or against specific items brought to Council by staff. Staff may provide a presentation. The Mayor will open the Public Hearing to receive comments on that specific item. Upon hearing all public comments, the Mayor will close or continue the Public Hearing. Council may then decide to engage in discussion and/or take action on the item. To participate in a Public Hearing, green Request to Speak forms are available at the Chambers entrance and are collected by the Sergeant at Arms. ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING Administrative Hearings required by Huntington Beach Municipal Code Section 1.18 entitle only affected property owners to speak on a respective item. To participate in the Administrative Hearing, blue Request to Speak forms are available at the Chambers entrance and are collected by the Sergeant at Arms (the Police Officer located near the speakers’ podium). CONSENT CALENDAR Consent Calendar items are considered routine items that do not normally require separate consideration. The City Council/Public Financing Authority usually makes one motion for approval of all the items listed under this section. However, Council may remove an item from the motion for discussion purposes. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS Administrative Items are considered separately and require separate motions. These actions are normally of a non-routine nature, and frequently require a staff presentation. ORDINANCES Ordinances require two readings before the City Council. They are first introduced, and then adopted at a subsequent meeting. Ordinances typically become law thirty (30) days after adoption. However, an emergency ordinance may be adopted upon introduction, and is effective immediately. COUNCILMEMBER ITEMS This portion of the agenda is provided for Items of business presented by individual members of the City Council. HB -2- -1- City Council/PFA Agenda – Monday, October 02, 2017 FRED A. WILSON City Manager MICHAEL E. GATES City Attorney ROBIN ESTANISLAU City Clerk ALISA CUTCHEN City Treasurer AGENDA Monday, October 02, 2017 CITY COUNCIL/PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 4:00 PM - Closed Session 6:00 PM - Regular Meeting Council Chambers - 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 http://www.huntingtonbeachca.gov MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL BARBARA DELGLEIZE Mayor MIKE POSEY PATRICK BRENDEN Mayor Pro Tem Councilmember JILL HARDY WILLIAM O’CONNELL Councilmember Councilmember ERIK PETERSON LYN SEMETA Councilmember Councilmember 4:00 PM - Council Chambers - Closed Session 6:00 PM - Council Chambers - Regular Business Meeting CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL O'Connell, Semeta, Posey, Delgleize, Hardy, Brenden, Peterson ANNOUNCEMENT OF SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATIONS (Received After Agenda Distribution) PUBLIC COMMENTS PERTAINING TO CLOSED SESSION ITEMS (3 Minute Time Limit) RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION Mayor Delgleize to Announce: Pursuant to Government Code § 54957.6, the City Council takes this opportunity to publicly introduce and identify designated labor negotiator, City Manager Fred Wilson, who will be participating in today's Closed Session discussions regarding labor negotiations with: Huntington Beach Police Officers' Association (POA), Municipal Employees' Association (MEA) and Management Employees' Organization (MEO). CLOSED SESSION 1. Pursuant to Government Code § 54957.6, the City Council shall recess into Closed Session to meet with its designated labor negotiators and Fred Wilson, City Manager regarding the following: Huntington Beach Police Officers’ Association (POA), Municipal Employees’ Association (MEA) and HB -3- -2- City Council/PFA Agenda – Monday, October 02, 2017 Management Employees’ Organization (MEO). 2. Pursuant to Government Code § 54956.9(d)(1), the City Council shall recess into Closed Session to confer with the City Attorney regarding the following lawsuit: Michael and Todd Bartlett v. City of Huntington Beach/Michael Baumgartner, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30- 2015-00778560. 3. Pursuant to Government Code § 54956.9(d)(1), the City Council shall recess into Closed Session to confer with the City Attorney regarding the following lawsuit: Isabel Navarrete Guardian Ad Litem for A.M., a minor v. City of Huntington Beach, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30- 2016-00876912. 4. Pursuant to Government Code § 54956.9(d)(1), the City Council shall recess into Closed Session to confer with the City Attorney regarding the following lawsuit: Angela Hernandez v. City of Huntington Beach, United States District Court Case No: 817-cv-01257 AG (KESx). 5. Pursuant to Government Code § 54956.9(d)(1), the City Council shall recess into Closed Session to confer with the City Attorney regarding the following lawsuit: MEO v. City of Huntington Beach; PERB UPC Case No. LA-CE-1103. 6. Pursuant to Government Code § 54956.9(d)(1), the City Council shall recess into Closed Session to confer with the City Attorney regarding the following lawsuit: Sunny Kang v. City of Huntington Beach/William Brownlee, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2013-00626834. 7. Pursuant to Government Code § 54956.9(d)(1), the City Council shall recess into Closed Session to confer with the City Attorney regarding the following lawsuit: Judy Hall v. City of Huntington Beach, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2016-00884770. 6:00 PM – COUNCIL CHAMBERS RECONVENE CITY COUNCIL/PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY MEETING ROLL CALL O'Connell, Semeta, Posey, Delgleize, Hardy, Brenden, Peterson PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE INVOCATION - Bishop Tad Baltzer of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and member of the Greater Huntington Beach Interfaith Council In permitting a nonsectarian invocation, the City does not intend to proselytize or advance any faith or belief. Neither the City nor the City Council endorses any HB -4- -3- City Council/PFA Agenda – Monday, October 02, 2017 particular religious belief or form of invocation. CLOSED SESSION REPORT BY CITY ATTORNEY AWARDS AND PRESENTATIONS Mayor Delgleize to present proclamation to proclaim October as "Dyslexia Awareness Month" to Decoding Dyslexia CA Chapter and Parent Support Group in Huntington Beach. Mayor Delgleize to call on representatives from the Huntington Beach Arts Alliance to present commendations to 30 artists for their participation in the upcoming "Dumpsters on Parade" event and their contribution to providing public art in Huntington Beach. ANNOUNCEMENT OF SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATIONS (Received After Agenda Distribution) PUBLIC COMMENTS (3 Minute Time Limit) COUNCIL COMMITTEE - APPOINTMENTS - LIAISON REPORTS, AB 1234 REPORTING, AND OPENNESS IN NEGOTIATIONS DISCLOSURES CITY MANAGER'S REPORT 1. Recap of the 2017 Breitling Air Show 2. Auto Dealers Business Improvement District Financial Report CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT 3. An explanation of recent State Legislature bills relating to housing and zoning, and their impacts to local governments CONSENT CALENDAR 4. Approve and adopt minutes Recommended Action: Review and adopt the City Council/Public Financing Authority regular meeting minutes dated September 18, 2017, as written and on file in the Office of the City Clerk. 5. Approve the Interim Appointment of Charles Adams to the position of Chief Financial Officer (CFO) Recommended Action: Approve and authorize the City Manager to appoint Charles Adams to the position of Chief Financial Officer in an interim capacity. HB -5- -4- City Council/PFA Agenda – Monday, October 02, 2017 6. Adopt Ordinance No. 4139 amending Huntington Beach Municipal Code Chapter 10.12 relating to speed limits on 90 street segments Approved for introduction September 18, 2017 Vote: 7-0 Recommended Action: Approve for introduction Ordinance No. 4139, "An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach Amending Section 10.12.080 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code Relating to Speed Limits." 7. Adopt Ordinance No. 4140 amending Chapter 14.55 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code (HBMC) relating to Sewer Service Rates Methodology Approved for introduction September 18, 2017 Vote: 6-1 (O'Connell - No) FIVE AFFIRMATIVE VOTES ARE REQUIRED TO ADOPT THIS ORDINANCE PER HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTION 5471 Recommended Action: A) Accept the Sewer Service Fund Performance Audit for Fiscal Year 2016-17; and, B) Approve for introduction Ordinance No. 4140, "An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach Amending Chapter 14.55 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code Relating to the Sewer Service Rates Methodology." PUBLIC HEARING 8. Adopt Resolution No. 2017-34 authorizing the Fire Department to have authority for processing street name change requests and adopt Resolution No. 2017-47 approving street name assignments for Huntington Harbour Village Recommended Action: A) Adopt Resolution Number 2017-34, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Designating the Fire Department as the Agency Authorized to Select Names for New Streets and Street Name Changes Within the City;" and, B) Adopt Resolution Number 2017-47, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Revising the Names of Existing Streets in Huntington Harbour Village Mobile Home Park." 9. Request for Continuance to October 16 -- Deny Variance No. 17-003 Appeal, which represents a request to deviate from several Zoning Code development standards to accommodate the relocation of a historic single-family residence HB -6- -5- City Council/PFA Agenda – Monday, October 02, 2017 Recommended Action: Continue Appeal of Variance No. 17-003 to the October 16, 2017 City Council meeting at the applicant's request. 10. Approve General Plan Amendment (GPA) No. 14-002 for the comprehensive update to the Huntington Beach General Plan by adopting Resolution No. 2017-41 Continued from September 18, 2017 with Public Hearing Closed Planning Commission and Staff Recommended Action Approve General Plan Amendment No. 14-002 by adopting Resolution No. 2017-41, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Approving General Plan Amendment No. 14-002 for the General Plan Update." ORDINANCES FOR INTRODUCTION 11. Approve for introduction Ordinance No. 4141 amending Huntington Beach Municipal Code Chapter 2.64 relating to the Community Services Commission Recommended Action: Approve for introduction Ordinance No. 4141, "An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach Amending Chapter 2.64 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code Relating to the Community Services Commission." COUNCILMEMBER ITEMS 12. Submitted by Councilmember O'Connell - Consider establishing a City Council Ad Hoc Committee on Coastal Area Odors Recommended Action: Mayor to establish a City Council Ad Hoc Committee to work with key stakeholders to formulate a Coastal Area Odors workplan for the Council's further review and action. COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS (Not Agendized) ADJOURNMENT The next regularly scheduled meeting of the Huntington Beach City Council/Public Financing Authority is Monday, October 16, 2017, at 4:00 PM in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California. INTERNET ACCESS TO CITY COUNCIL/PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY AGENDA AND STAFF REPORT MATERIAL IS AVAILABLE PRIOR TO CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS AT http://www.huntingtonbeachca.gov HB -7- Minutes City Council/Public Financing Authority City of Huntington Beach Monday, September 18, 2017 5:00 PM - Council Chambers 6:00 PM - Council Chambers Civic Center, 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 A video recording of the 6:00 PM portion of this meeting is on file in the Office of the City Clerk, and archived at www.surfcity-hb.org/government/agendas/ 5:00 PM - Council Chambers - Closed Session 6:00 PM - Council Chambers - Regular Business Meeting CALLED TO ORDER — 5:01 PM ROLL CALL Present: O’Connell, Semeta, Posey, Delgleize, Hardy, Brenden, and Peterson Absent: None ANNOUNCEMENT OF SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATIONS (Received After Agenda Distribution) — None PUBLIC COMMENTS PERTAINING TO CLOSED SESSION ITEMS (3 Minute Time Limit) — None RECESSED TO CLOSED SESSION — 5:02 PM A motion was made by Posey, second Semeta, to recess to Closed Session for Item Nos. 1 — 5. With no objections, the motion carried. Mayor Delgleize Announced: Pursuant to Government Code § 54957.6, the City Council takes this opportunity to publicly introduce and identify designated labor negotiator, City Manager Fred Wilson, who will be participating in today’s Closed Session discussions regarding labor negotiations with: Huntington Beach Police Officers’ Association (POA), Municipal Employees’ Association (MEA) and Management Employees’ Organization (MEO). CLOSED SESSION 1. Pursuant to Government Code § 54957.6, the City Council recessed into Closed Session to meet with its designated labor negotiators and Fred Wilson, City Manager regarding the following: Huntington Beach Police Officers’ Association (POA), Municipal Employees’ Association (MEA) and Management Employees’ Organization (MEO). 2. Pursuant to Government Code § 54956.9(d)(1), the City Council recessed into Closed Session to confer with the City Attorney regarding the following lawsuit: Michael and Todd Bartlett v. City of Huntington Beach/Michael Baumgartner, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2015-00778560. HB -8-Item 4. - 1 Council/PFA Regular Minutes September 18, 2017 Page 2 of 15 3. Pursuant to Government Code § 54956.9(d)(1), the City Council recessed into Closed Session to confer with the City Attorney regarding the following lawsuit: Isabel Navarrete Guardian Ad Litem for A.M., a minor v. City of Huntington Beach, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2016-00876912. 4. Pursuant to Government Code § 54956.9(d)(1), the City Council recessed into Closed Session to confer with the City Attorney regarding the following lawsuit: Angela Hernandez v. City of Huntington Beach, United States District Court Case No: 817-cv- 01257 AG (KESx). 5. Pursuant to Government Code § 54956.9(d)(1), the City Council recessed into Closed Session to confer with the City Attorney regarding the following lawsuit: MEO v. City of Huntington Beach; PERB UPC Case No. LA-CE-1103. 6:00 PM – COUNCIL CHAMBERS RECONVENED CITY COUNCIL/PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY MEETING — 6:17 PM ROLL CALL Present: O’Connell, Semeta, Posey, Delgleize, Hardy, Brenden, and Peterson Absent: None PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE — Led by Councilmember Hardy INVOCATION – Given by Mark Currie of Bahá’í of Huntington Beach and member of the Greater Huntington Beach Interfaith Council In permitting a nonsectarian invocation, the City does not intend to proselytize or advance any faith or belief. Neither the City nor the City Council endorses any particular religious belief or form of invocation. CLOSED SESSION REPORT BY CITY ATTORNEY City Attorney Michael Gates announced that Closed Session Item Nos. 2 – 5 will continue to the next regularly scheduled meeting on Monday, October 2, 2017. AWARDS AND PRESENTATIONS Mayor Delgleize called on Victoria Alberty who introduced Karen of Top Dog Barkery and Tilly, the Adoptable Pet of the Month. Further details can be found at Top Dog Barkery, Pacific City, or at www.waggintrails.org. Mayor Delgleize called on Fire Chief David Segura who presented a proclamation for National Preparedness Month. Chief Segura provided resources to assist residents and business owners to be as prepared as possible for a natural disaster. Mayor Delgleize called on Sister City student ambassadors who recently visited Anjo, Japan. Student Ambassadors Anthony Camacho, Effie Hill, Jasmine Mundo and Chaperone Susan Liechty shared their personal perspective and appreciation for the opportunity to participate in the Sister City program. HB -9-Item 4. - 2 Council/PFA Regular Minutes September 18, 2017 Page 3 of 15 Mayor Delgleize called on members of the Huntington Beach Police Officers’ Foundation (HBPOF) who presented a check from the Constable Classic Charity Golf Tournament to the Epilepsy Support Network of Orange County. Mr. Dennis Hashin, along with members of the Tournament Committee and of the HBPOF presented a check for $42,000. Mayor Delgleize called on Huntington Beach Police Chief Rob Handy who presented the Mayor’s Award to Detective Pat Ellis. Detective Ellis started his law enforcement career in Los Angeles and came to Huntington Beach in 1994. He held positions in Patrol, Field Training, Beach Detail, Downtown Foot Beat, and Director of Enforcement before becoming a Detective with the Economic Crimes Unit in 2001. In 2004 he joined the Crimes Against Persons Unit where he has been for 13 years. Detective Ellis was instrumental in helping to solve several out-of-state cold cases, as well as an arrest for a 1994 double homicide in downtown Huntington Beach. Chief Handy congratulated Detective Ellis for outstanding performance and being a tribute to the Huntington Beach Police Department. ANNOUNCEMENT OF SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATIONS (Received After Agenda Distribution) Pursuant to the Brown "Open Meetings" Act, City Clerk Robin Estanislau announced a supplemental communication that was received by her office following distribution of the Council Agenda packet: Ordinances for Introduction: Item No. 10, PowerPoint communication, submitted by Travis Hopkins, Director of Public Works, entitled Speed Limit Updates Speed Surveys. PUBLIC COMMENTS (3 Minute Time Limit) — 18 Speakers The number [hh:mm:ss] following the speakers' comments indicates their approximate starting time in the archived video located at http://www.surfcity-hb.org/government/agendas. Miguel Prieto, member of the Huntington Beach Police Officers' Association (HBPOA), was called to speak and thanked the members of the community who reached out in support of the officers injured in the recent officer-involved shooting. He also acknowledged the officers from surrounding communities and other law enforcement organizations who assisted at the time of the incident, including Chief Segura and Huntington Beach Fire Department staff. (00:30:26) Gina Clayton-Tarvin, Huntington Beach resident and homeowner, was called to speak and voiced her concerns about a noxious gas smell that seems to blanket the City a couple of times a month. She asked that the City create a task force to investigate the source of this problem, and work with the Air Quality Management District (AQMD) to do what is necessary to eliminate the source to safeguard the health of Huntington Beach residents. (00:33:17) Phil Burtis, Huntington Beach Community Emergency Response Team (HBCERT), was called to speak and presented a PowerPoint communication with pages entitled: CERT Background, Recent Disaster Events, and CERT Class Topics. Mr. Burtis encouraged residents to take advantage of the next CERT Class from October 20 – 22. Registration is required through the City's website. (00:36:15) Teresa Spurlock was called to speak and stated her concerns about the noxious gas smell which has permeated her neighborhood off and on for at least ten years. (00:39:01) Richard Hart, Huntington Beach resident for 43 years, was called to speak and voiced his concerns about the noxious gas smell which in his opinion seems to be emanating from the Bolsa Chica Wetlands area. Mr. Hart provided a handout which documents the date and time of occurrence since May 2016. HB -10-Item 4. - 3 Council/PFA Regular Minutes September 18, 2017 Page 4 of 15 He asked for the City's help in determining the source as well as the composition of the gas. Mayor Delgleize asked Mr. Hart to complete a blue card for staff follow up. (00:41:23) Barbara Haynes. Co-Founder, Huntington Beach Public Art Alliance, was called to speak, presented a short video and invited everyone to the Dumpsters on Parade event on Saturday, October 7, at 10 AM Downtown. (00:43:46) Diane Hanna was called to speak and as a concerned resident and local business owner encouraged the City to create a task force to find the source and eliminate the noxious gas smell which she and her family have endured for four years. (00:46:38) Dustin Morris was called to speak and as a concerned resident shared his personal experiences related to the noxious gas smell during the past year, and encouraged the City to create a task force to find the source and eliminate it. (00:48:02) Connie Whitledge was called to speak and, as a concerned Huntington Beach resident of 23 years, encouraged the City to do whatever is necessary to find the source and eliminate the noxious gas smell which she believes is a health hazard. (00:50:41) Philip Johnson, a resident of Fullerton, was called to speak and shared that from his experience, noxious gas smells are a public safety concern. (00:52:06) John Redfelli was called to speak and asked that the Council consider making Bocci courts available in the City. (00:55:04) Adam Plesniak, resident of Huntington Beach, was called to speak and encouraged the City to create a task force, of which he would like to be a member, to find the source and eliminate the noxious gas smell which he has experienced for twelve years. (00:56:53) Traci White was called to speak, and as a resident of Huntington Harbour, reported what she believes is a drug house for narcotics and gang members and requested more officer patrols. Mayor Delgleize asked Ms. White to complete a blue card for staff follow up. (01:00:05) Kathryn Levassiur, Huntington Beach Short-Term Rental Alliance, was called to speak and thanked the City Council for making it possible to hold the Short-Term Rental Workshop on September 16. Ms. Levassiur asked that the Council build on the momentum generated by the Workshop dialogue and seek further studies and definitive answers. (01:02:21) Chris Ling was called to speak and stated his concerns about the work being done on the Ascon site (Hamilton & Magnolia). Mayor Delgleize asked Mr. Ling to complete a blue card for staff follow-up. (01:04:03) Jina Provensen, attorney, parent and resident of Huntington Beach, was called to speak and shared her experiences with noxious gas smells and encouraged the City to create a task force to find the source and eliminate it. (01:07:28) Bill McCarty, Member, Residents for Responsible Desalination (R4RD), was called to speak and shared concerns about quality of life and economic issues related to the Poseidon Desalination project. (01:10:34) HB -11-Item 4. - 4 Council/PFA Regular Minutes September 18, 2017 Page 5 of 15 Scott Chambers, Huntington Beach resident and former student of Ms. Hardy, was called to speak and encouraged the City to create a task force to find the source and eliminate the noxious gas smell which he and his family have experienced. (01:13:40) COUNCIL COMMITTEE - APPOINTMENTS - LIAISON REPORTS, AB 1234 REPORTING, AND OPENNESS IN NEGOTIATIONS DISCLOSURES Mayor Pro Tem Posey reported attending the League of Cities Conference which included a meeting on an overview of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and California Public Employee Retirement System (CalPERS). He also spent some time on the Assembly floor. Councilmember Hardy reported meeting with members of the Huntington Beach Police Officers' Association (HBPOA), and she attended a Coastal Cities Interest Group meeting in Sacramento as part of the League of Cities Conference. Councilmember Peterson reported attending an Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) meeting which included discussion on the major construction projects at the Huntington Beach facility. He also attended a Southern California Association of Government (SCAG) meeting to discuss Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) topics, and that there will be a public meeting to address this topic on October 5. Councilmember Semeta reported attending an Association of California Cities – Orange County (ACC- OC) Public Safety Forum which presented strategies for a regional focus. Councilmember Brenden reported attending a Huntington Beach Downtown Business Improvement District (HBDBID) Board meeting and an Orange County Homelessness Task Force Central Service Area meeting. Councilmember O'Connell reported attending the League of Cities Conference in Sacramento, and meeting with representatives of the Huntington Beach Police Officers' Association (HBPOA) and the Huntington Beach Firefighters' Association (HBFA). Mayor Delgleize reported attending the League of Cities Conference in Sacramento, including sessions on California Roads and Reducing Homelessness. CITY MANAGER’S REPORT 1. Information Services demonstrated the new mobile app called My HB City Manager Wilson introduced Information Technology Analyst Nicole Arms who presented a PowerPoint communication entitled Citizen Engagement with a Mobile App with slides entitled: Why Mobile App, Increase Use of Mobile Devices, Advantages of Mobile App, Strategic Goal, Citizen Engagement with a Mobile App, My HB App, Government, City News, Upcoming Events, Experience HB, Beach Information, Citizen Engagement with a Mobile App, What's Next, Event Icons, Service Requests, Staff App, Make a Payment, Citizen Engagement with a Mobile App, Availability, Mobile Device Stores, and Spread the Word. CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Pro Tem Posey pulled Consent Calendar Item Nos. 2 and 4. HB -12-Item 4. - 5 Council/PFA Regular Minutes September 18, 2017 Page 6 of 15 2. Approved and adopted minutes Mayor Pro Tem Posey pulled this item to announce that due to his absence from the September 5, 2017, meeting he would abstain from voting on this item. A motion was made by Brenden, second O’Connell to review and adopt the City Council/Public Financing Authority regular meeting minutes dated September 5, 2017, as written and on file in the Office of the City Clerk. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: O’Connell, Semeta, Delgleize, Hardy, and Brenden NOES: None ABSTAIN: Posey, and Peterson 3. Approved appointments to the Allied Arts Board (AAB) with terms to expire June 30, 2021, as recommended by Council Liaisons Peterson and Semeta A motion was made by Brenden, second Hardy to approve the appointment of Pati Kent, Paula Lazicki, and Hek Valdez to the Allied Arts Board (AAB) with terms to expire June 30, 2021, as recommended by Council Liaisons Peterson and Semeta. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: O’Connell, Semeta, Posey, Delgleize, Hardy, Brenden, and Peterson NOES: None 4. Approved the appointment of Lori Ann Farrell-Harrison to the position of Assistant City Manager (ACM) and authorized the City Manager to execute the Employment Agreement Mayor Pro Tem Posey pulled this item to note the superior judgment of City Manager Wilson in selecting the new Assistant City Manager. To support this selection, Mayor Pro Tem Posey referenced one of Ms. Farrell-Harrison's demonstrated leadership strengths, as listed on her resume, as a "highly effective communicator adept at conveying complex financial data in a way that is easily understood by the public, elected and appointed officials, and the media". He further noted that as Chief Financial Officer for the City of Huntington Beach she has increased Reserves by $10M, received the “Golden Hub of Innovation” Award from the ACC-OC for reducing pension liabilities, and was nominated by the Orange County Business Council for “CFO of the Year” in 2015. Councilmember Semeta congratulated Ms. Farrell-Harrison. City Manager Wilson introduced the newly appointed Assistant City Manager Lori Ann Farrell-Harrison. Assistant City Manager Farrell-Harrison expressed her gratitude for this amazing opportunity, and stated her excitement to be working with a great team to bring Huntington Beach to even higher levels of innovation and excellence. She also thanked her family for their encouragement and support as she pursued this opportunity. A motion was made by Posey, second Brenden to approve and authorize the City Manager to execute the "Employment Agreement Between the City of Huntington Beach and Lori Ann Farrell-Harrison" for the position of Assistant City Manager. HB -13-Item 4. - 6 Council/PFA Regular Minutes September 18, 2017 Page 7 of 15 The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: O’Connell, Semeta, Posey, Delgleize, Hardy, Brenden, and Peterson NOES: None 5. Adopted Ordinance No. 4138 amending Municipal Code Title 15 regarding oil well abandonment requirements Approved for Introduction September 5, 2017 Vote: 5-0-2 (Posey, Peterson - Absent) A motion was made by Brenden, second Hardy to adopt Ordinance No. 4138, "An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach Amending Sections 15.08.010 and 15.32.090 through 15.32.120 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code Relating to Development of Property with Abandoned Oil Wells, and Amending Related Definitions in the Municipal Code." The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: O’Connell, Semeta, Posey, Delgleize, Hardy, Brenden, and Peterson NOES: None PUBLIC HEARING Councilmember O'Connell stated he has an interest in a property which is within 500 feet of the Auto Dealers Business Improvement District, and also an interest in Legends within the Downtown Business Improvement District and therefore recused himself from Public Hearing Item Nos. 6 and 7 and left the dais. 6. Public Hearing held to consider adoption of Resolution No. 2017-32 approving an Annual Assessment within the Huntington Beach Auto Dealers Business Improvement District (Auto BID) for Fiscal Year 2017-2018 City Manager Wilson introduced Economic Development Project Manager Simone Slifman who presented a PowerPoint communication entitled: 2017/2018 Business Improvement District Renewals with slides entitled: Renewal Process, Public Hearing/Protests, Huntington Beach Auto Dealers Business Improvement District, Auto Dealers BID 2017-2018, Auto BID Members, 2017-2018 Budget/Goals, and Recommended Action. PUBLIC HEARING — No Speakers Mayor Delgleize opened the Public Hearing for Item No. 6. City Clerk Robin Estanislau read a statement describing BID protest procedures. City Clerk Estanislau announced there were no speakers. Mayor Delgleize closed the Public Hearing. For the Auto Dealers BID, City Clerk Estanislau reported zero protests were received and the percentage of assessments was zero percent, or zero dollars, of the $112,800 projected assessment amount. HB -14-Item 4. - 7 Council/PFA Regular Minutes September 18, 2017 Page 8 of 15 Councilmember Peterson stated his concerns about the limited line-item budget with only four items, and requested a more detailed report. Mayor Pro Tem Posey commented that the Huntington Beach Auto Dealers members have exceeded $1B in sales, compared to 2012 when sales were $475M. Councilmember Peterson requested that the item be continued to the next City Council meeting to allow review of a detailed budget. Project Manager Slifman voiced concerns about how action to postpone Council approval of the item to October 2nd would impact operations since the Auto Dealers BID FY begins on October 1, 2017. Councilmember Peterson clarified that he supports the Auto Dealers BID, but would like to see the detailed budget at the October 2, 2017, City Council meeting and not have to wait a full year for these details. Project Manager Slifman stated that the Auto Dealers BID is scheduled to be audited this year as recommended by the City’s Finance Committee, and they will be asked to attend the next Council meeting to answer questions. A motion was made by Peterson, second Posey to conduct the Public Hearing, and, adopt Resolution No. 2017-32, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Approving an Annual Assessment within the Huntington Beach Auto Dealers Association Business Improvement District for Fiscal Year 2017-2018." The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Semeta, Posey, Delgleize, Hardy, Brenden, and Peterson NOES: None RECUSED: O’Connell 7. Public Hearing held to consider adoption of Resolution No. 2017-30 approving an Annual Assessment within the Huntington Beach Downtown Business Improvement District (DTBID) for Fiscal Year 2017-2018, and appropriated $15,000 into Fund 701 for 2016-2017 Economic Development Project Manager Simone Slifman presented a PowerPoint communication entitled Huntington Beach Downtown Business Improvement District, 2017-2018 Renewal with slides entitled: Downtown BID 2017-2018, 2016-2017 Accomplishments, Proposed Assessments, Boundaries and Benefit Zones 1 and 2 Map, Proposed Budget: Income, Proposed Budget: Expenses, Proposed Budget 2017-2018, 2017-2018 Goals, and Recommended Action. Mayor Delgleize and Manager Slifman discussed that BID member assessments come in through Business License fees, and when the BID invoices the City for qualified expenditures, it is paid back to them if they have generated adequate assessments. Mayor Pro Tem Posey and Manager Slifman further discussed income and expenditure details. Mayor Delgleize opened the Public Hearing for Item 7. City Clerk Robin Estanislau read a statement describing BID protest procedures. Ron Griffin, appearing on behalf of Cody Kahn, Owner of Annie's Nails, 501 Main Street, was called to speak and stated that they see little or no benefit for their $300 assessment. Mr. Griffin further stated HB -15-Item 4. - 8 Council/PFA Regular Minutes September 18, 2017 Page 9 of 15 that many of the Downtown activities actually take the crowd down towards the beach and away from their location. Mr. Griffin proposed that the Downtown BID funds come from the profits of the varied events rather than assessing individual businesses. (02:02:42) Mayor Pro Tem Posey and City Manager Wilson discussed ramifications to the Council not approving the Downtown BID assessment for the next year in light of the reserve account balance. There being no additional speakers, Mayor Delgleize closed the Public Hearing. City Clerk Estanislau stated that if the protests total less than 50% of the total assessment amount, the City Council can approve the proposed Downtown Business Improvement District. If more than 50% of the total assessment is protested, the City Council cannot form the Downtown Business Improvement District or consider it further for one year. City Clerk Estanislau stated that the City received protests from 1 of the 341 businesses in the Business Improvement District boundaries, and that the percentage of assessments protested for the Downtown BID is .00217%, or $300 of the $134,760 projected assessment amount. (02:06:22) A motion was made by Hardy, second Brenden to conduct the Public Hearing; and, adopt Resolution No. 2017-30, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Approving An Annual Assessment Within the Huntington Beach Downtown Business Improvement District For Fiscal Year 2017-2018;" and appropriate $15,000 into Fund 701 for 2016-2017. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Semeta, Posey, Delgleize, Hardy, Brenden, and Peterson NOES: None RECUSED: O’Connell 8. Certified Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 14-001 by adopting Resolution No. 2017-40; and, Continued to October 2, 2017 General Plan Amendment (GPA) No. 14- 002 for the comprehensive update to the Huntington Beach General Plan by adopting Resolution No. 2017-41 City Manager Wilson introduced Community Development Director Scott Hess who thanked staff and community members for three years of effort on this project, and introduced Planning Manager Jennifer Villasenor who presented a PowerPoint communication entitled: General Plan Update with slides entitled: General Plan Approach, Draft General Plan, Existing 1996 General Plan, Proposed General Plan Update, Planning Area, Land Use Map, Distribution of Land Uses (2), Development Capacity (2), Research and Technology, Circulation Element, and Draft General Plan Update Elements; Draft Program EIR, Issues Analyzed in the Draft Program EIR, Significant and Unavoidable Impacts (2), Alternatives, Final Program EIR, Statement of Overriding Considerations, Recommendation — General Plan Update, and Questions/Discussion. Mayor Delgleize opened the Public Hearing for Item No. 8. Pursuant to the Brown “Open Meetings” Act, City Clerk Robin Estanislau announced supplemental communications that were received by the City Clerk’s Office following distribution of the Council agenda packet: HB -16-Item 4. - 9 Council/PFA Regular Minutes September 18, 2017 Page 10 of 15 For Public Hearing Item No. 8: Communication submitted by Carol Hansen, Ed.D., Superintendent, Ocean View School District, dated September 15, 2017, regarding Program Environmental Impact Report No. 14-001 and GPU Amendment No. 14-002. PowerPoint communication submitted by the Community Development Department entitled General Plan Update — City Council Public Hearing. Communication submitted by The Kennedy Commission dated September 18, 2017, regarding Comments on Huntington Beach's General Plan Update — Land Use Element. PUBLIC HEARING — 6 Speakers Gina Clayton-Tarvin, President, Ocean View School District Board of Trustees, was called to speak and stated that school districts are State agencies which are not subject to City ordinances. Ms. Clayton- Tarvin stated that the School District sent a letter to City Council requesting Policy ERC-2F be removed from the General Plan Update. This policy concerns potentially requiring that school properties be left unsecure during after-school hours. Ms. Clayton-Tarvin stated that the School District must secure their property for student and teacher safety, as well as to protect their facilities. Presently the District allows public access on most properties, and it is anticipated this will continue, but the decision is the sole responsibility and authority of the District and their Board of Trustees. Ms. Clayton-Tarvin also stated that the District appreciates the City's cooperation and thoughtful consideration of the District's comments and concerns during the General Plan Update process. (02:45:57) Connie Mandic, Chair, Huntington Beach Planning Commission, was called to speak and shared details on the process of approving the EIR and General Plan Update by the Planning Commission. Chair Mandic explained that a total of nine study sessions were held, and described how the Commission spent hours and hours reviewing these documents, page by page, for this important process. Chair Mandic also indicated that two Planning Commissioners were present and available to answer any questions. (02:48:26) John Scandura, Planning Commissioner, speaking as a resident, was called to speak and stated his support of the General Plan Update which will guide the City's growth, development and land-use policies through 2040. Mr. Scandura stated that this Update does not add any new residential zones, nor does it increase density in any existing zones. He believes that the new Research and Technology zones will bring high technology and cutting-edge businesses which will provide well-paying jobs, increase the tax base and diversify the City's economy. The Planning Commission recommended changes to improve traffic flow, reduce noise impacts, enhance mass transit, and keep the Bolsa Chica tidelands outlet open. Mr. Scandura supports having the City work with the school districts to keep playgrounds and playing fields open and available after school hours. Mr. Scandura believes that if school properties are fenced and locked after the school day, only sports groups who pay rent to the districts would be allowed to use these facilities, and he believes this open space should be preserved for use by everyone. (02:50:25) Mark Sheldon, Member, Environmental Board and Circulation Task Force, commenting as an individual, was called to speak and thanked everyone involved in the process. Mr. Sheldon stated that the General Plan Update is a guideline for the vision of the future of the City. In his opinion, the nature of jobs, communication and commuting will change in the future. The General Plan Update will help to ensure quality of life, business environment and economy for Huntington Beach. (02:53:31) HB -17-Item 4. - 10 Council/PFA Regular Minutes September 18, 2017 Page 11 of 15 Adam Wood, Building Industry Association/Orange County (BIA/OC) and Huntington Beach resident, was called to speak and encouraged the Council to be aware of the importance of housing and the impact State policies will have. Mr. Wood stated his concerns about the decrease in number of new housing units as proposed in the General Plan Update. (02:56:34) There being no more public speakers Mayor Delgleize closed the Public Hearing. Mayor Pro Tem Posey and Planning Manager Villasenor discussed that the General Plan Update proposes to add approximately 4,200 units above and beyond what has already been approved but not built, through 2040, or about 100 units per year outside of Specific Plan areas. This assumption is based on the land use mass. Mayor Pro Tem Posey and Planning Manager Villasenor also discussed that the General Plan Update will not be impacted by Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) legislation. Mayor Pro Tem Posey and Planning Manager Villasenor discussed that the General Plan Update would allow for 473 acres of Research and Technology designated area which would leave over 650 acres of Industrial designated area. Manager Villasenor explained that if the General Plan Update is approved, the next step of the process would be for the Planning Commission and City Council to make changes to the Zoning Code for Research and Technology. At the present time it appears that a number of industrial businesses in the City are interested in being able to add Research and Technology, and therefore it seems that Research and Technology will not necessarily replace industrial businesses. Planning Manager Villasenor explained that SB35 legislation has passed, but doesn't believe it has been signed into law by Governor Brown, and therefore has no impact on the General Plan Update. SB35 will mandate annual housing element reports, which include housing production or building permits. SB35 will change reporting from “planning for” Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) and showing capacity and zoning, to showing how much housing “is produced” in the City. Mayor Delgleize and Planning Manager Villasenor discussed that the City's planning efforts will be consistent with the City's wireless and broadband master plans. Also, the General Plan Update does not include any specific development projects, nor does it make any changes to any single family residential zones. Councilmember Peterson thanked staff and the Planning Commission for the many hours devoted to the update. With the final version of the General Plan Update and Environmental Impact Report only available for the past few days, he requested that adoption be continued to the October 2, 2017, City Council meeting to allow time for input from the City Attorney specifically related to potential impact(s) of SB35. Councilmember Semeta and Planning Manager Villasenor discussed that all school districts were notified of public sessions throughout the process and only the Ocean View School District has responded to the policy of the City working cooperatively with the school districts. Councilmember Semeta voiced her support of Councilmember Peterson's request for more time to review specifically potential impact(s) of SB35. Councilmember Peterson suggested straw vote actions be taken on identified revisions in the GPU, and made a motion to remove 2-40 (E) - Attachment 3 - "to not preclude future mobility technology in land use and planning." Planning Manager Villasenor explained the Planning Commission’s reasoning behind HB -18-Item 4. - 11 Council/PFA Regular Minutes September 18, 2017 Page 12 of 15 the language. Mayor Pro Tem Posey interpreted the language as appropriate, as did Councilmember Hardy. Without a second to the motion, the straw vote failed. Councilmember Peterson requested consideration to remove 3-29 - Goal Circulation B(1) regarding traffic calming measures CR-1-d. In response to Councilmember Hardy, Transportation Manager Stachelski discussed traffic calming measures currently in place now. Without support for removal, the item will remain as presented. Councilmember Peterson requested to change the term "feasible" to "economical" in Transportation System, Item G – Alternative Fuels. Without support for the request, the item will remain as presented. Councilmember Peterson asked if crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED) is being considered for new construction through mandates or as a general rule. A Planning Consultant and Planning Manager Villasenor explained what is typically addressed on a project-by-project basis. Regarding 8-67, Development Review Requirements — "evaluate the needs for additional technology infrastructure", Councilmember Peterson asked who is qualified in the City to judge because this should be the developer's decision. Planning Manager Villasenor stated that the intent is a suggestion and it is not a requirement. Planning Commission Chair Mandic clarified that words such as "evaluate or consider" were used rather than "must" because this is up to the developer who is expected to respond to the technology needs. Councilmember O'Connell expressed support for strengthen language to clarify that it is the developer’s responsibility to evaluate the needs for technology infrastructure, and also provided support for continuing approval of the GPU to the next City Council meeting date so that the City Attorney's Office can review and report back with the potential impacts of SB35. Councilmember Hardy confirmed with Director Hess that there is a Huntington Beach Police Department employee who is available to evaluate CPTED issues for new development projects. A motion was made by Peterson, second Posey to certify the Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 14-001 by adopting Resolution No. 2017-40, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Certifying Program Environmental Impact Report No. 14-001 for General Plan Amendment No. 14-002 (General Plan Update)"; and, approve the CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: O’Connell, Semeta, Posey, Delgleize, Hardy, Brenden, and Peterson NOES: None A motion was made by Peterson, second O’Connell to continue to October 2, 2017 with public hearing closed General Plan Amendment No. 14-002 by adopting Resolution No. 2017-41, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Approving General Plan Amendment No. 14-002 for the General Plan Update," as amended to allow for input from the City Attorney on the potential impacts of SB35 legislation. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: O’Connell, Semeta, Posey, Delgleize, Hardy, Brenden, and Peterson HB -19-Item 4. - 12 Council/PFA Regular Minutes September 18, 2017 Page 13 of 15 NOES: None 9. Continued from September 5, 2017, with Public Hearing Open — Consider Accepting the Sewer Service Fund Performance Audit for Fiscal Year 2016-17 and approve for Introduction Ordinance No. 4140 amending Chapter 14.55 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code (HBMC) relating to Sewer Service Rates Methodology FIVE AFFIRMATIVE VOTES ARE REQUIRED TO ADOPT THIS ORDINANCE PER HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTION 5471 City Manager Wilson introduced Director of Public Works Travis Hopkins who introduced Administrative Analyst Senior Chris Davis to present a PowerPoint communication entitled: Sewer Service Fund Annual Performance Audit with slides entitled; Introduction, FY 16/17 Maintenance Activities, FY 16-17 CIP Project Status, Reserve Policy, Fiscal Year 2017-18 Budget Overview, Proposed FY 17-18 Budget, Fund Balance Summary, Proposed Sewer Charges (2), and Recommended Action. Mayor Delgleize confirmed with Director Hopkins that the last sewer rate increase was in 2010. Mayor Delgleize announced that the item was continued from September 5 with the Public Hearing open. City Clerk Robin Estanislau announced there were no public speakers. There being no speakers, Mayor Delgleize closed the Public Hearing. Councilmember Brenden and Director Hopkins discussed that 11 of the City's 27 lift stations are old and need to be replaced which will require over $33M during the next 13 years. The reserve fund monies have been decreasing the last several years due to equipment replacements, and that this item is also to ensure funding for necessary capital improvements for the next five years. A motion was made by Posey, second Brenden to accept the Sewer Service Fund Performance Audit for Fiscal Year 2016-17; and, after the City Clerk reads by title, approve for introduction Ordinance No. 4140, "An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach Amending Chapter 14.55 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code Relating to the Sewer Service Rates Methodology." The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Semeta, Posey, Delgleize, Hardy, Brenden, and Peterson NOES: O’Connell ORDINANCES FOR INTRODUCTION 10. Approved for introduction Ordinance No. 4139 amending Huntington Beach Municipal Code Chapter 10.12 relating to speed limits on 90 street segments City Manager Wilson introduced Transportation Manager Bob Stachelski who presented a PowerPoint communication entitled: Speed Limit Updates Speed Surveys with slides entitled: Speed Survey Purpose, 2017 Speed Survey Update (2), Recommended Action, and Questions or Comments. Councilmember Hardy confirmed with Manager Stachelski the decrease in speed from 40 MPH to 35 MPH for westbound Indianapolis, between Beach and Newland, and the lack of "reduced speed” warning signs when the change is five miles per hour. HB -20-Item 4. - 13 Council/PFA Regular Minutes September 18, 2017 Page 14 of 15 Councilmember Semeta and Manager Stachelski discussed the W arner and Algonquin area where new electronic radar feedback signs and curb advisory signs have been placed this past year. A motion was made by Posey, second Semeta to, after the City Clerk reads by title, approve for introduction Ordinance No. 4139, "An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach Amending Section 10.12.080 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code Relating to Speed Limits." The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: O’Connell, Semeta, Posey, Delgleize, Hardy, Brenden, and Peterson NOES: None COUNCILMEMBER ITEMS 11. Submitted by Councilmembers Semeta and Peterson — Direct the City Attorney to conduct a review of Zoning and Subdivision Map Ordinance (ZSO) Councilmembers Semeta and Peterson introduced this item because they believe there currently are clauses in the Zoning and Subdivision Map Ordinance that may create confusion in relation to local authority over land use laws that are not otherwise preempted by State law. A motion was made by Semeta, second Peterson to propose directing the City Attorney to conduct a thorough review of the City's ZSO and return to the Planning Commission, then City Council, with any recommendations for amendments to the code, including amendments necessary to eliminate any confusion regarding the City's local authority over land use laws that are not otherwise preempted by State Law. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: O’Connell, Semeta, Posey, Delgleize, Hardy, Brenden, and Peterson NOES: None COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS (Not Agendized) Mayor Pro Tem Posey reported attending the Blessing of the Waves, Patriots' Day Ceremonies on 9/11 at City Hall and again at Pier Plaza, and the 10th Annual Pacific Islander Festival at Central Park. Councilmember Peterson reported attending the Rededication of Worthy Park, Blessing of the Waves, Short-Term Rental Community Workshop, and meeting with Congressman Rohrabacher who is trying to get a bill through the House to address airplane noise levels. Councilmember Peterson highly recommends the Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) training program as the best way to gain the knowledge to be prepared for a natural disaster. Councilmember Hardy acknowledged Norm Worthy for his foresight in ensuring neighborhood parks throughout Huntington Beach, and reported attending the Rededication of Worthy Park, Senior Saturday, Patriots' Day Ceremony, and thanked the American Legion Post 133 for hosting the Patriots' Day Ceremony. Councilmember O'Connell reported attending the Huntington Beach Police Department Open House, Short-Term Rental Community Workshop, a tour of City Hall with visiting students from Japan, Patriots' Day Ceremony hosted by the American Legion Post 133, a Special Olympics Fundraiser, the HB -21-Item 4. - 14 Council/PFA Regular Minutes September 18, 2017 Page 15 of 15 Rededication of Worthy Park, and the retirement dinner honoring nineteen Huntington Beach Police Department employees. Councilmember Semeta reported attending the Rededication of Worthy Park, visiting Bed, Bath and Beyond with Mayor Delgleize, Special Olympics Fundraiser, 40th Anniversary Celebration for Teacher Created Materials with Mayor Delgleize, the Patriots' Day Ceremony at Pier Plaza, a presentation by the Director of John Wayne Airport, and the Huntington Beach Police Department Open House. Councilmember Brenden commented on the General Plan Update process which has been ongoing for nearly four years. He congratulated the Community Development Director Scott Hess, Planning Manager Villasenor and the Planning Commissioners for the many, many hours of review and meetings during the process. Councilmember Brenden reminded everyone of several upcoming events: the September 24th Chefs for Scholarships at Golden W est College, the 2017 Breitling Huntington Beach Air Show, and October 7th Dumpsters on Parade and food drive. Councilmember Brenden reported attending the Short-Term Rental Community Workshop, Eagle Court of Honor for Jacob Barker of Troop 1, and Patriots' Day ceremony at Pier Plaza. Councilmember Brenden closed his comments by expressing gratitude for the years of service provided by Bud Berge to the City in various capacities including as a Finance Commissioner, and condolences to his family at this time of his recent passing. Mayor Delgleize acknowledged the Norm Worthy Family and reported attending the Rededication of Worthy Park which includes four new Pickle Ball courts, the Special Olympics Fundraiser, 40th Anniversary Celebration for Teacher Created Materials, 9/11 Assembly at Harbor View Elementary School, Patriots' Day Ceremony at Pier Plaza, and Short-Term Rental Community Workshop. Mayor Delgleize echoed Councilmember Peterson's comments about recommending the CERT training program. Mayor Delgleize reminded people to go to www.cityofkindness.com or #hbkindness to record their acts of kindness. ADJOURNMENT — at 10:40 PM in memory of Bud Berge, to the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Huntington Beach City Council/Public Financing Authority on Monday, October 02, 2017, at 4:00 PM in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California. ______________________________________ City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach and Secretary of the Public Financing Authority of the City of Huntington Beach, California ATTEST: ______________________________________ City Clerk-Secretary ______________________________________ Mayor-Chair HB -22-Item 4. - 15 Dept. ID HR 17-014 Page 1 of 2 Meeting Date: 10/2/2017 Statement of Issue: A national recruitment is being conducted for the recently vacated position of Chief Financial Officer. The City Manager is recommending the interim appointment of Charles Adams to the position until the recruitment process is completed. Financial Impact: Funding is included in the FY 2017/18 adopted budget. Recommended Action: Approve and authorize the City Manager to appoint Charles Adams to the position of Chief Financial Officer in an interim capacity. Alternative Action(s): Do not approve the interim appointment of Charles Adams to the position of Chief Financial Officer and direct the City Manager otherwise. Analysis: The position of Chief Financial Officer has become vacant due to the promotion of the former incumbent, Lori Ann Farrell-Harrison, to Assistant City Manager, thereby creating the need to fill the department head vacancy. The City Manager has authorized the Office of Human Resources to launch a national recruitment for the vacant Chief Financial Officer position. It is anticipated that the position will be filled by late December or early January 2018. In the interim, the City Manager has selected Mr. Charles Adams to fill the position. Mr. Adams has extensive executive-level experience in the public sector in both career and interim/acting appointments. Mr. Adams recently served as the Interim Administrative Services Director for the City of Irvine, the Acting Managing Director for Finance and Administration for the Port of Long Beach, and as the interim Finance Director and Assistant City Manager for the City of South El Monte. Mr. Adams has additional career public service as the Assistant Director for the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works, the City Controller for the City of Long Beach and the Chief Financial Manager – Utilities Department for the City of Palo Alto. Mr. Adams obtained a Bachelors Degree in Business Administration from Michigan State University and holds a Masters Degree in Personnel Management from Central Michigan University. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 10/2/2017 SUBMITTED TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members SUBMITTED BY: Fred A. Wilson, City Manager PREPARED BY: Michele Warren, Director of Human Resources SUBJECT: Approve the Interim Appointment of Charles Adams to the position of Chief Financial Officer (CFO) HB -23-Item 5. - 1 Dept. ID HR 17-014 Page 2 of 2 Meeting Date: 10/2/2017 The hourly compensation is $100.13 per hour with no City-provided benefits. The interim appointment of Mr. Adams is compliant with California Government Code, Sections 7522.56 and 2122(h). Strategic Plan Goal: Enhance and maintain City service delivery Strengthen economic and financial sustainability Attachment(s): 1. Resume – Charles W. Adams HB -24-Item 5. - 2 CHARLES W. ADAMS ____________________________________________________ EDUCATION 1980 - M. A., Personnel Management, Central Michigan University; 1970 - B. A., Business Administration, Michigan State University; EXPERIENCE December 2010 to Present Retirement Career Public sector consultant providing high level interim managerial support in administrative areas such as finance, budget, procurement, human relations, employment related mediations, contract negotiations, internal/external audits, info rmation technology, and fleet services. Assignments have been at the City of South El Monte as Finance Director and as Assistant City Manager (2010-2013); Port of Long Beach as Finance Director (2014) and as Managing Director of Finance and Administration ( 2016-2017); City of Irvine as Director of Administrative Services (2015-2016). January 1992 to January 2010 County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works February 2007 to January 2010 Assistant Director Budget: $150 million - Direct $1.7 billion - Indirect Personnel: 670 Chief Administrative Officer of a multipurpose organization of 4,200 employees responsible for the County's Capital Projects, Roads, Bridges and Highways, Flood Control and Water Conservation, Water and Sewer Districts, Building and Safety Code enforcement, Waste Management, Lighting Districts, Improvement Districts, General Aviation Airports, Transit Systems, Traffic Control and Emergency Response within the County of Los Angeles. These activities serve an unincorporated population of approximately 1 million residents and provide contract services to approximately 35 cities; I directed the activities of the Chief Financial Officer, Chief Information Officer, Internal Audit Manager, and the Deputy Director responsible for Human Resources, Labor Relations, Materials Management, Procurement, Contracts, and Fleet Services. Also, I was the Project Director for the implementation of an ERP replacement system that was successfully implemented on July 1, 2008. August 1998 to January 2007 Deputy Director responsible for Human Resources Division, Financial Management Branch, and Administrative Services Division January 1992 to July 1998 Chief Financial Officer responsible for the Financial Management Branch HB -25-Item 5. - 3 December 1987 to December 1991 City Controller City of Long Beach, California Budget: $ 5.0 million - Direct $1.2 billion - Indirect Personnel: 50 Planned, organized, and directed the central accounting and financial record keeping activities for a large full service City to ensure the orderly flow of funds from revenue sources through final disbursement; assisted in establishing and ensuring conformity with the City's goals and financial conformity with generally accepted accounting principles. Managed year-end closing process, including preparation of the City's Annual Financial Report and Annual Redevelopment Report. Represented the City before Financial Rating Agencies. Member of the City's Central Budget Review Committee and the City's Investment Committee; acted for the Finance Director in his absence. January 1983 to December 1987 Chief Financial Manager, Utilities Department City of Palo Alto, California Budget: $2 million - Direct; $110 million - Indirect Personnel: 35 Responsibilities were for the enterprise accounting of the electric, gas, water, wastewater collection, wastewater treatment, and refuse operations; also included customer accounting, customer information, customer services and meter reading; main tasks we re coordination and control of the utility department's annual budget and capital program, generating financial reports and forecasts, financing, monitoring the investment of utility reserves and the processing and collection of revenues. Member of the City's Labor Negotiation Team. Represented the City before Financial Rating Agencies. Selected Professional/Volunteer Activities/ Professional Awards  California Society of Municipal Finance Officer  Current member and past co-chair of cash management and seminar committees  Government Finance Officers Association  Current member  American Society for Public Administration  Current member  Government Finance Officers Association, Award for Excellence in Financial Reporting, Fiscal Years 1988 through 1991  California Society of Municipal Finance Officers, Award for Excellence in Financial Reporting, Fiscal Years 1988 through 1991 HB -26-Item 5. - 4 Dept. ID PW 17-052 Page 1 of 3 Meeting Date: 9/18/2017 Statement of Issue: The California Vehicle Code requires periodic review and updating of posted speed limits on certain streets within the City to enable the Police Department to continue to use speed-measuring devices for enforcement. The recommended action establishes updated speed limits on 90 street segments. This includes reaffirming current posted speed limits on 86 street segments and posted speed limit reduction on four street segments. Financial Impact: None. Funding for the implementation of the recommended speed limits is included in the Public Works Department operating budget. Recommended Action: Approve for introduction Ordinance No. 4139, "An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach Amending Section 10.12.080 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code Relating to Speed Limits." Alternative Action(s): Adopt posted speed limits different from those recommended and forgo enforcement using speed- measuring devices of amended segments. Analysis: City staff has performed the three required elements used to establish posted speed limits in accordance with procedures set forth by the State of California. All speed limits must be established in conformance with the State adopted procedures in order to gain legal support for enforcement of the posted speed limit. The three elements used to establish speed limits are: 1. Sample existing travel speeds at representative locations within the roadway segment. 2. Review accident history. 3. Review the street segment to identify roadway characteristics and conditions that may not be readily apparent to motorists. The review of travel speeds is used to establish a baseline speed limit for a roadway segment. Per California Standards, the posted speed limit is established at the nearest five mile per hour (5 mph) increment of the 85th percentile speed of free-flowing traffic, except as shown in the two options below: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR. CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 9/18/2017 SUBMITTED TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members SUBMITTED BY: Fred A. Wilson, City Manager PREPARED BY: Travis K. Hopkins, PE, Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Approve for introduction Ordinance No. 4139 amending Huntington Beach Municipal Code Chapter 10.12 relating to speed limits on 90 street segments. 9/18/2017 Approved for Introduction - Vote: 7-0 HB -27-Item 6. - 1 Dept. ID PW 17-052 Page 2 of 3 Meeting Date: 9/18/2017 1. The posted speed may be reduced by 5 mph from the nearest 5 mph increment of the 85th percentile speed of free-flowing traffic. Written documentation is required of the conditions and justification for the lower speed limit. 2. For cases in which the nearest 5 mph increment of the 85th percentile would require rounding up, then the speed limit may be rounded down to the nearest 85th percentile speed without the requirement to identify specific conditions justifying the reduction, if no further reduction is used. Case law has shown that the courts will not support speed limit postings that appear to be arbitrary and without demonstrated technical support. To ensure consistency in establishing speed limits, the State has established very specific procedures, requirements and standards under which all speed limits must be established. Any speed limit found by the courts to be inconsistent with approved requirements is deemed a “speed trap” and, therefore, not enforceable. Attachment 2 presents the Legislative Draft of the recommended ordinance adopting the new speed limits. Ninety (90) street segments were due for reevaluation this year. The locations are shown in Attachment 3. Staff conducted field studies, summarized field data, and analyzed accident information of the segments. A summary of the results are presented in Attachment 4. Attachment 5 contains the speed survey data sheets of the 90 evaluated street segments. Staff has identified characteristics within several of the roadway segments which may not be readily apparent to motorists. Due to these conditions, posting near the 85th percentile speed may not be reasonable and prudent to facilitate the orderly flow of traffic. Attachment 4 identifies the street segments where conditions were applied to reduce the speed limit 5 mph from the nearest 5 mph increment of the 85th percentile speed. The conditions and justification for the lower speed limit are documented in the speed survey summary sheet (Attachment 5) when applied. The recommendation includes a decrease of the posted speed limit on the following four street segments: • Edinger Avenue from Bolsa Chica Street to Springdale Street – from 45 mph to 40 mph • Indianapolis Avenue from Beach Boulevard to Newland Street – from 40 mph to 35 mph • Parkside Lane from Edinger Avenue to Holt Drive – from 30 mph to 25 mph • Warner Avenue from PCH to Algonquin Street – from 50 mph to 45 mph Ten of the surveyed street segments are within the jurisdictions of Huntington Beach and either City of Westminster or City of Fountain Valley • Bolsa Avenue from Edwards Street to Goldenwest Street (Westminster) • Edinger Avenue from Beach Boulevard to Newland Street (Westminster) • Goldenwest Street from McFadden Avenue to Bolsa Avenue (Westminster) • McFadden Avenue from Goldenwest Street to Gothard Street (Westminster) • Garfield Avenue from Beach Boulevard to Magnolia Street (Fountain Valley) • Garfield Avenue from Magnolia Street to Brookhurst Street (Fountain Valley) • Garfield Avenue from Brookhurst Street to Ward Street (Fountain Valley) • Magnolia Street from Warner Avenue to I-405 (Fountain Valley) • Newland Street from Talbert Avenue to Warner Avenue (Fountain Valley) • Warner Avenue from Beach Boulevard to Magnolia Street (Fountain Valley) HB -28-Item 6. - 2 Dept. ID PW 17-052 Page 3 of 3 Meeting Date: 9/18/2017 For street segments shared between different cities it is necessary to coordinate the posted speed limit with the neighboring city for consistency. Recently, staff coordinated the speed limit updates with the City’s of Westminster and Fountain Valley to establish a consistent posted speed limit on these shared street segments. The speed limit updates also includes a correction in the ordinance for the speed limit on Hamilton Avenue between Newland Street and Magnolia Street. The current ordinance reads a speed limit of 45 mph for the segment. The correct speed limit and current speed limit posting for this street segment is 40 mph based on engineering and traffic surveys conducted in 2015. This ordinance will correct the speed limit posting on Hamilton Avenue between Newland Street and Magnolia Street from 45 mph to 40 mph. Public Works Commission Action: The Public Works Commission reviewed the item at their July 19, 2017, meeting and recommended City Council approval to staff’s recommendation of the posted speed limits as shown on Attachment 4 with a vote of 3-1-3 (3 commissioners absent). Environmental Status: None required. Strategic Plan Goal: Enhance and maintain public safety Attachment(s): 1. Ordinance 4139, “An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach Amending Chapter 10.12.080 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code Relating to Speed Limits” 2. Legislative Draft of Municipal Code Section 10.12.080 3. Map of Surveyed Street Segments 4. Summary Table of Recommended Speed Limits 5. Speed Survey Summary Sheets HB -29-Item 6. - 3 1st 17th PCH PCH Palm Adams 17th Algonquin Argosy Atlanta Warner Balsa Chica 1st Bri htwater Brookhurst BETWEEN Atlanta Palm Main Florida Main Lake Beach Magnolia Brookhurst East City Limit Heil Graham Delaware Beach Newland Magnolia Brookhurst Brookhurst Springdale Edwards Goldenwest ESIEMEEEMENEME Los Patos Warner Edinger Rancho Balsa Chica 432232===as Banning Atlanta Adams Garfield ZUW MUM 5=5.0,8137 STREET Huntington Main Lake Beach Magna] ia Brookhurst Delaware Beach Newland Magnolia Bannir, Ma inlia Balsa Bolsa Chica 17-5953/163377/mv Bolsa Chica Springdale Edwards South City Limit Los Patos Warner Edinger Warner T PCH T Banning Atlanta Adams 1 SPEED 35 35 35 25 25 25 40 45 45 45 35 40 35 40 40 45 45 35 45 45 40 30 35 45 50 tag= 30 50 45 45 45 ORDINANCE NO. 4139 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING CHAPTER 10.12.080 OF THE HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO SPEED LIMITS The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION I. Section 10.12.080 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 10.12.080 Speed Limits Enumerated Streets are listed alphabetically and categorized up (North) and to the tight (East). HB -30-Item 6. - 4 Hamilton Indianapolis 40 40 EME Broolchurst Hamilton Indianapolis Yorktown Gothard Admiral Main Adams Edgewater Atlanta Adams Garfield Bolsa Chica Springdale Goldenwest Beach Garfield Yorktown Garfield 1-405 Gilbert Beach Yorktown Edinger Algonquin Adams Garfield Balsa Chica Springdale Goldenwest Beach Newland Warner BETWEEN ORDINANCE NO. 4139 SPEED EEE STREET Bushard Channel ZS Coldwater Davenport Delaware Edinger 6E2 Edwards 35 1ZZ 40 45 30 30 30 35 35 45 40 45 40 40 40 Edinger Bolsa North City Limit Gothard 45 40 40 45 Ellis Edwards WEE Florida Garfield Goldenwest Gothard Beach Garfield Seapoint Go ldenwest Main Beach Magnolia Brookhurst PCH Yorktown Ellis Newland ZZEZE EZZI Goldenwest Main Beach Magnolia Brookhurst Ward Yorktown Ellis Slater Slater 40 40 30 45 45 45 45 45 45 50 50 50 45 Heil Heil McFadden 17-5953/163377/mv 2 McFadden Balsa 0.91. .EIZE 45 45 HB -31-Item 6. - 5 30 25 30 35 40 40 30 35 35 40 45 45 45 45 45 25 30 35 45 25 35 45 45 45 Yorktown Banning Atlanta Taylor Beach Newland Magnolia Brookhurst Indianapolis Adams Hamilton Atlanta Adams Garfield 1-405 6th Adams Yorktown Ellis/Beach Chemical Graham Edwards Goldenwest Gothard 40 East City Limit 35 Hamilton Ma nolia Huntington Indianapolis Lake Magnolia Main McFadden Newland PCH Yorktown ,a111:2n221:51,FIRD Lake Beach Newland Orange Indianapolis Adams PCH Banning Hamilton Atlanta Adams Warner PCH 6th Adams Yorktown Bolsa Chica Chemical Graham Edwards Goldenwest Gothard PCH ORDINANCE NO. 4139 STREET BETWEEN SPEED Gothard Main Garfield Ellis Slater Warner Heil Center Garfield Ellis Slater Warner Heil Center McFadden 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Graham South City Limit Slater 35 Slater Warner Warner Heil 40 35 Heil Edinger 40 Edin Bolsa 45 PEEMEHEEM Hamilton Newland Magnolia East City Limit 40 45 =MN= Heil Saybrook Bolsa Chica 35 Bolsa Chica Springdale 40 Springdale Goldenwest 40 Goldenwest Beach 45 Beach Newland 40 Newland East City Limit 35 17-59531163377/mv 3 HB -32-Item 6. - 6 REN Summit =MEMMEZE Warner ======= Gothard ===== Ellis Peninsula MEMMUMMEMEM= Plaza Promenade Quarterhorse Springdale South City Limit Slater 45 Slater Warner Heil Warner 45 Heil 45 Edinger 45 ORDINANCE NO. 4139 STREET BETWEEN I SPEED Hamilton Indianapolis 45 Indianapolis Adams 45 Adams Garfield Talbert Warner 1-405 Garfield Talbert Warner Heil Edinger 45 45 45 45 40 Orange 1st 30 17th 30 Rancho Bolsa Chica North/East City Limits 40 Saybrook Heil Edinger 35 Seapoint PCH Garfield 40 Sher Juliette Low Edinger 25 Slater Graham Edwards 45 Edwards Gothard 45 Gothard Beach 40 Beach Newland 40 Edinger McFadden 45 McFadden North City Limits 45 17-5953/163377/rnv 4 HB -33-Item 6. - 7 Director of Puliie Works ORDINANCE NO. 4139 Yorktown Talbert STREET West City Limit Central Library Driveway Gothard Beach PCH Algonquin Graham Edwards Goldenwest Beach Goldenwest Lake Beach Newland Bushard Yorktown Edwards ETWF,EN Algonquin Graham Edwards Goldenwest Beach Magnolia Edwards Gothard Beach Newland Lake Beach Newland Bushard Ward Garfield Talbert I SPEED 45 45 45 45 45 45 35 35 40 40 45 SECTION 2. This ordinance shall become effective 30 days after its adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof on the day of , 2017. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk REVIEWED AND APPROVED: City Manager 17 -5953/163377/my 5 HB -34-Item 6. - 8 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT HBMC Chapter 1 O. 1 2. 080 10.12.080 Speed Limits Enumerated Streets are listed alphabetically and categorized up (North) and to the right (East). STREET BETWEEN SPEED 1st PCH Atlanta 35 17th P_C_ff Palm 35 Palm Main 35 Huntinapn Florida 25 Adams 17th Main Street 25 Main Street Lake Street 25 Lake Street Beach 40 Beach Magnolia 45 Magnolia Brookhurst 45 Brookhurst East City Limit 45 A lgolipiti V, ,INIL t I Ril 1 % ft)Ii ( 111,—t ( Er,11),Ini lo Atlanta 1st Delaware 35 Delaware Beach 40 Beach Newland 40 Newland Magnolia 45 Magnolia Brookhurst 45 Banning Magnolia Brookhurst 35 Bolsa Bolsa Chica Springdale 45 Springdale Edwards 45 Edwards Goldenwest 40 17-5953/163378/mv 1 HB -35-Item 6. - 9 ii, ri4PA,,-I.' Bolsa Chica South City Limit Los Patos 30 Los Patos Warner 35 Warner Edinger 45 Edinger Rancho 50 JIiHt\\Jir Hoka ( iiici -U) Brookhurst PCH Banning 50 Banning Atlanta 45 Atlanta Adams 45 Adams Garfield 45 Bushard Brookhurst Hamilton 40 Hamilton Indianapolis 40 Indianapolis Yorktown 40 Yorktown Garfield 45 Center Gothard 1-405 Fwy 35 ( IILIIIIIH 1 till -mi =',0 Clay Main Beach 30 Cold \\ i.itcr .16111H Y,,f -Iti n \'il -; 0 , Countess Portofino. Edinger 30 Dariport .Hioc\valci - , :\ H(.+11tiLiiii Delaware Atlanta Adams 35 Adams Garfield 35 Garfield Ellis 35 17-5953/163378/my 2 HB -36-Item 6. - 10 Edinger West City Limit Balsa Chica 45 Balsa Chica Springdale 4440 Springdale Goldenwest 45 Goldenwest Beach 40 Beach Newland 40 Edwards Garfield Warner 40 Warner Edinger 45 Edinger Balsa 40 Bolsa North City Limit 40 Ellis Edwards Gothard 45 Gothard Main 40 Beach Newland 40 Flpt Ui ,,It riLld Nhin Garfield Seapoint Goldenwest 45 Goldenwest Main Street 45 Main Street Beach 45 Beach Magnolia 45 Magnolia Brookhurst 45 Brookhurst Ward 45 Yorktown 50 Goldenwest PCH Yorktown Ellis 50 Ellis Slater 50 Slater Heil 45 Heil McFadden 45 McFadden Balsa 45 '4. :V4 '• t ,.: A;i:.t, ' ''''''' • .k, ..Q, rf.,.n 4:: , 2. •4:;T:t: t ' 10:";i: .-; , li', '.1= `e ' Gothard Main Garfield 40 Garfield Ellis 40 17-5953/163378/mv 3 HB -37-Item 6. - 11 Ellis Slater 40 Slater Warner 40 Warner Heil 40 Heil Center 40 Center McFadden 40 Graham South City Limit Slater 35 Slater Warner 40 Warner Heil 35 Heil Edinger 40 Edinger Bolsa 45 Hamilton Newland Magnolia 4540 Magnolia East City Limit 45 .7- s. m Heil Saybrook Bolsa Chica 35 Bolsa Chica Springdale 40 Springdale Goldenwest 40 Goldenwest Beach 45 Beach Newland 40 Newland East City Limit 35 Huntington FCH Atlanta 30 Yorktown Taylor 25 Indianapolis Lake Beach 30 Beach Newland 4035 Newland Magnolia 40 Magnolia Brooldiurst 40 Lake Orange Indianapolis 30 Indianapolis Adams 35 Adams Yorktown 35 17-5953/163378hnv 4 HB -38-Item 6. - 12 Magnolia PCH Banning 40 Banning Hamilton 45 Hamilton Atlanta 45 Atlanta Adams 45 Adams Garfield 45 Warner 1-405 (San Diego Fwy) 45 Main Street PCH 6th 25 6th Adams 30 Adams Yorktown 35 Yorktown Ellis/Beach 45 McFadden Bolsa Chica Chemical 25 Chemical Graham 35 Graham Edwards 45 Edwards Goldenwest 45 Goldenwest Gothard 45 Gothard East City Limit 40 Newland PCH Hamilton 35 Hamilton Indianapolis 45 Indianapolis Adams 45 Adams Garfield 45 Garfield Talbert 45 Talbert Warner 45 Warner Heil 45 1-405 Edinger ,_ -s.,....w„,,,,,, 40 ttr, :: :.=:; Orange 1st 17th 30 17th Goldenwest 30 Palm Maim17th Goldenwest 30 Goldenwest Seapoint 35 17-5953/163378/mv 5 HB -39-Item 6. - 13 Parkside Holt Edinger 4125 Pciiin,a1 L,tinillilt (iiiti‘i(i PLi>i V, Nt fici - I IL11 Promenade _ Gothard \Loll Q urCF 11c Hhp. i nil Rancho Bolsa Chica North/East City Limits 40 Sanrl ,N , I, [1 1 1 I Iii CF 4-7th PCH Palm 35 Palm Main 3-5- Huntington Florida 25 Seapoint PCH Garfield 40 Shcl Julictic I i)v, 1 dmL[. Sl ater Graham Edwards 45 Edwards Gothard 45 Gothard Beach 40 Beach Newland 40 Springdale South City Limit Slater 45 Slater Warner 45 Warner Heil 45 Heil Edinger 45 Edinger McFadden 45 McFadden North City Limits 45 17-5953/163378/mv 6 HB -40-Item 6. - 14 Skylab West of Rancho Rd Springdale 40 Summit Seapoint Goldenwest 35 Talbert West City Limit Edwards 40 Central Library Driveway Gothard 35 Gothard Beach 45 Beach Newland 45 Varsity Drive Edwards Talbert 30 11.14 ,n \11 ( ,,illicflii Warner PCH Algonquin 5045 Algonquin Graham 45 Graham Edwards 45 Edwards Goldenwest 45 Goldenwest Beach 45 Beach Magnolia 45 Yorktown Goldenwest Lake 35 Lake Beach 35 Beach Newland 40 Newland Bushard 40 Bushard Ward 45 17-5953/163378/mv 7 HB -41-Item 6. - 15 IJJ _1 AVE I 1,7, 1— 1— < MCV DDEN (I) 0 1 SAYBROOK NO SCALE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH * PUBLIC WORKS 2017 SPEED SURVEY LOCATIONS ATTACHMENT 3 HB -42-Item 6. - 16 STREET BETWEEN CURRENT POSTED SPEED LIMIT (MPH) RECOMMENDED POSTED SPEED LIMIT (MPH) 5 MPH REDUCTION APPLIED 1st PCH - Atlanta 35 35 Adams Beach - Magnolia 45 45 √ Adams Magnolia - Brookhurst 45 45 Adams Brookhurst - East City Limits 45 45 √ Atlanta 1st - Delaware 35 35 Atlanta Beach - Delaware 40 40 Atlanta Beach - Newland 40 40 √ Atlanta Newland - Magnolia 45 45 Atlanta Magnolia - Brookhurst 45 45 Bolsa Springdale - Edwards 45 45 Bolsa Edwards - Goldenwest 40 40 Bolsa Chica South City Limit to Los Patos 30 30 Bolsa Chica Los Patos - Warner 35 35 √ Bolsa Chica Warner - Edinger 45 45 √ Delaware Garfield - Ellis 35 35 Edinger Bolsa Chica - Springdale 45 40 √ Edinger Springdale - Goldenwest 45 45 Edinger Goldenwest - Beach 40 40 Edinger Beach - Newland 40 40 √ Edwards Bolsa - North City Limit 40 40 √ Ellis Edwards - Gothard 45 45 √ Ellis Gothard - Main 40 40 Ellis Beach - Newland 40 40 √ Garfield Goldenwest - Main 45 45 Garfield Main - Beach 45 45 Garfield Beach - Magnolia 45 45 Garfield Magnolia - Brookhurst 45 45 Garfield Brookhurst - Ward 45 45 √ Goldenwest PCH - Yorktown 50 50 Goldenwest Yorktown - Ellis 50 50 Goldenwest Ellis - Slater 50 50 Goldenwest Slater - Heil 45 45 Goldenwest Heil - McFadden 45 45 √ Goldenwest McFadden - Bolsa 45 45 √ Gothard Main - Garfield 40 40 Gothard Garfield - Ellis 40 40 √ Gothard Ellis - Slater 40 40 √ Gothard Slater - Warner 40 40 Gothard Warner - Heil 40 40 √ Gothard Heil - Center 40 40 √ Gothard Center - McFadden 40 40 Graham Slater - Warner 40 40 Graham Warner - Heil 35 35 √ Graham Heil - Edinger 40 40 Graham Edinger - Bolsa 45 45 Heil Saybrook - Bolsa Chica 35 35 √ Heil Goldenwest - Beach 45 45 Indianapolis Lake - Beach 30 30 Indianapolis Beach - Newland 40 35 √ Indianapolis Newland - Magnolia 40 40 √ Indianapolis Magnolia - Brookhurst 40 40 √ ATTACHMENT 4 HB -43-Item 6. - 17 STREET BETWEEN CURRENT POSTED SPEED LIMIT (MPH) RECOMMENDED POSTED SPEED LIMIT (MPH) 5 MPH REDUCTION APPLIED Magnolia PCH - Banning 40 40 √ Magnolia Banning - Hamilton 45 45 √ Magnolia Adams - Garfield 45 45 Magnolia Atlanta - Adams 45 45 Magnolia Hamilton - Atlanta 45 45 Magnolia Warner - I-405 45 45 Main Adams - Yorktown 35 35 √ Main Yorktown - Beach 45 45 McFadden Edwards - Graham 45 45 McFadden Edwards - Goldenwest 45 45 McFadden Goldenwest - Gothard 45 45 McFadden Gothard - East City Limit 40 40 Newland PCH - Hamilton 35 35 Newland Hamilton - Indianapolis 45 45 Newland Indianapolis - Adams 45 45 √ Newland Talbert - Warner 45 45 Newland Warner - Heil 45 45 Parkside Holt - Edinger 30 25 √ Plaza Warner - Heil 25 25 Slater Graham - Edwards 45 45 Slater Edwards - Gothard 45 45 √ Slater Gothard - Beach 40 40 √ Slater Beach - Newland 40 40 √ Springdale South City Limit - Slater 45 45 Springdale Slater - Warner 45 45 Springdale Warner - Heil 45 45 Springdale Heil - Edinger 45 45 Springdale Edinger - McFadden 45 45 Talbert West City Limits - Edwards 40 40 √ Talbert Library Entrance - Gothard 35 35 Talbert Gothard - Beach 45 45 Talbert Beach - Newland 45 45 Ward Yorktown - Garfield 45 45 Warner PCH - Algonquin 50 45 √ Warner Goldenwest - Beach 45 45 Warner Beach - Magnolia 45 45 Yorktown Beach - Newland 40 40 √ Yorktown Newland - Bushard 40 40 √ Yorktown Bushard - Ward 45 45 HB -44-Item 6. - 18 ATTACHMENT 5 HB -45-Item 6. - 19 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA Traffic Engineering Speed Survey Street Surveyed ADAMS AVE eiween BEACH BLVD TO MAGNOLIA ST late Surveyed 3/16/17 ime Surveyed 2:35 PM to 2:55 PM 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 7 6 6 4 2 5 2 9 7 8 2 2 5 1 2 5 5 7 6 2 2 2 9 7 8 2 2 10 II 16 13 14 4 7 3 7 # Of Vehicles Posted Speed Limit New Speed Limit Pace /e In Pace 5th % 40 - 49 M.P.H. 82% 111 45 M.P.H. 45 M.P.H. 49 M.P.H. 38 Accident Rate(Acc/MVM)= 0.57 State Rate= 2.40 37 erformed By DS Approved; City Of Huntington Beach Robert Stacheiski, Transportation Manager R.T.E. 1651 28 0 emarks Several commercial access locations exist along the street segment along with cross traffic at intersecting residential streets with visibility limitations, Adjacent street segments posted 45 mph. A posted speed limit of 45 mph would be reasonable and safe to facilitate the orderly flow of traffic. 23 0 22 21 20 _k19 0 TOTAL # of Lanes [ j Two [ Three [ ] Four [ X 3 Six Other Median [Xl Raised [ Painted I ] Painted Center Line Bike Lanes [ J Yes [ X ] No Grading [ X 3 Flat [ ] Sloped [ ] OCFCD Channel Parking [ X ] Yes [X} No Land Use [ X ] Commercial [ ] Industrial [XI Residential Complete section below to GertitY a copy of this original survey. This document is a correct copy of the original in the PW Dept Date Sign Title City of Huntington Beach CA Public Works Department HB -46-Item 6. - 20 [ ] Two [ 1 Three [ ] Four [ X ] Six Other Median Bike Lanes Grading Parking Land Use [ X ] Raised [ ] Painted [ ] Painted Center Line Complete section below to certify a copy of this original survey. H Yes [ X ] No This document is a correct copy of the original in the PW Dept [ X ] Flat [ Sloped [1 OCFCD Channel [ ] Yes [ X ] No Date Sign Title [Xl Commercial [ ] Industrial [ X I Residential City of Huntington Beach CA Public Works Department HB -47-Item 6. - 21 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA Traffic Engineering Speed Survey Street Surveyed Pace I% hi Pace Posted Speed Limit New Speed Limit ADAMS AVE 41 - 50 M.P.H. 88% 45 MPH, 45 M.P.H. Accident Rate(Acc/MVM)= 1.04 State Rate—. Approved: City Of Huntington Beach Robert Stachelski, Transportation Manager R.T.E. 1651 Remarks Several full access commercial driveways exist along the west portion of this segment with significant cross traffic. Intersecting residential streets with visibility limitations and adjacent street segments posted 45 mph. Due to these reasons a posted speed limit of 45 mph would be reasonable and safe to facilitate the orderly movement of traffic. 11 10 # of Lanes [ ] Two [ ] Three [ ] Four [ X ] Six Other Median [ X ] Raised [ ] Painted [ ] Painted Center Line Bike Lanes [ ] Yes [ X ] No Grading [XI Flat [ ] Sloped [ ] OCFCD Channel Parking [ ] Yes [ X ] No Land Use [ X I Commercial [ ] Industrial [ X ] Residential Complete section below to certify a copy of this original survey. This document is a correct copy of the original in the PW Dept. Date Sign Title City of Huntington Beach CA Public Works Department HB -48-Item 6. - 22 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA Traffic Engineering Speed Survey Street Surveyed Pace % In Pace Or Vehicles Losted Speed Limit New Speed Limit ATLANTA AVE 28 - 37 MPH, 78% 109 35 M.P.H. 35 M.P.H. Approved: City Of Huntington Beach Date: Robert Stachelski, Transportation Manager R.T.E. 1651 Remarks # of Lanes Median Bike Lanes Grading Parking Land Use [XI Two [ ] Three [ ) Four [ ] Six Other [ X ] Raised [ I Painted [ ] Painted Center Line Complete section below to certify a copy of this original survey. [ ) Yes [XI No Th is document is a correct copy of the original in the PW Dept [ X ] Flat [ X ) Sloped ( ] OCFCD Channel [XI Yes 1) No Date Sign Title [I Commercial [ ] Industrial I X] Residential City of Huntington Beach CA Public Works Department HB -49-Item 6. - 23 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA Traffic Engineering Speed Survey Street Surveyed ATLANTA AVE TOTAL Between DELAWARE ST TO BEACH BLVD Pate Surveyed 3/21/17 52 51 50 49 irime Surveye 85th % 2:35 PM 42 MPH. to 2:55 PM 48 Pace 35 - 44 M.P.H. 47 2 46 3 .4 In Pace 78% 45 2 44 5 Of Vehicles 111 43 42 17 ['Posted Speed Limit 40 M.P.H. 41 40 New Speed Limit 40 M.P.H. 39 38 Accident Rate(Acc/MVM)= 074 State Rate... 3,05 performed By DS Approved: City Of Huntington Beach Date: Robert Stachelski, Transportation Manager R,T,E. 1651 Remarks 26 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 # of Lanes [ ] Two [ ] Three [ X ] Four [ 1 Six Other Median ] Raised ( ] Painted [ ] Painted Center Line Bike Lanes 1] Yes [ X ] No Grading [ X ] Flat [ ] Sloped [I OCFCD Channel Complete section below to certify a copy of this original survey. This document is a correct copy of the original in the PW Dept. Parking [ X ] Yes [ ] No Date Sign Title Land Use [J Commercial [ ] Industrial [ X ] Residential City of Huntington Beach CA Public Works Department HB -50-Item 6. - 24 58 57 Street Surveyed ATLANTA AVE Time Surveyed 2:05 PM 2:20 PM to 52 2 Pace 36 - 45 M.P.H. 49 48 47 46 45 ' 44 43 4 3 %LnPace 78% 2 3 3 6 rti Of Vehicles 109 6 10 12 Posted Speed Limit 40 M.P.H. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA Traffic Engineering Speed Survey MPH 60 59 BEACH BLVD TO NEWLAN'D ST 56 Between 55 3/27/17 Pate Surveyed 53 51 50 85th 44 M,P,H 12 13 3.35 lAccident Rate(Acc/MVM)= 1.37 State Rate= Performed By DS Approved: City Of Huntington Beath Date: Robert Stachelski, Transportation Manager R.T.E. 1651 Remarks Several full access commercial driveways along the west portion of the segment, numerous multi-family 0 residential driveways along the south side of the segment with on-street parking and pedestrian crossings, residential intersection crossings on the north side of the segment. Due to these conditions the posting of 40 mph would be prudent to facilitate the safe and efficient flow of traffic. 25 24 . 23 0 0 22 21 0 0 0 or o r 0 0 # of Lanes Median Bike Lanes Grading [ ] Two [ ] Three [ X ] Four [ ] Six Other [ X ] Raised [ ] Painted [ I Painted Center Line [ ] Yes [ X I No [ X ] Flat ] Sloped [ ] OCFCD Channel Complete section below to certify a copy of this original survey. This document is a correct copy of the original in the PW Dept. Parking [ X ] Yes [] No Date Sign Title Land Use [ X ] Commercial [ ] Industrial ( X ) Residential City of Huntington Beach CA Public Works Department HB -51-Item 6. - 25 58 Street Surveyed ATLANTA AVE 'A In Pace 87% Of Vehicles 109 Posted Speed Limit 45 M.P,H, 14ew Speed Limit 45 M.P.H. 40 39 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA Traffic Engineering Speed Survey MPH 60 59 TOTAL 57 56 Between NEWLAND ST TO MAGNOLIA ST 55 Date Surveyed 3/27/17 Time Surveyed 2:25 PM to 2:45 PM 5th % 44 M.P.H. 1 race 36 - 45 M.P.H. 41 38 37 lAccident Rate(Acc/MVM)= 1,01 State Rate,. 3.35 36 35 Performed By DS 32 Date: Robert Stachelski, Transportation Manager R.T.E. 1651 31 30 29 28 27 Approved: City Of Huntington Beach Complete section below to certify a copy of this original survey. This document is a correct copy of the original in the PW Dept. # of Lanes Median Bike Lanes Grading Parking Land Use [ ] Two [ ] Three [ X ] Four [ ] Six Other [ ] Raised [ X ] Painted [ 1 Painted Center Line [1 Yes [XI No [ X ] Flat [ ] Sloped [ ] OCFCD Channel [ ] Yes [ X ] No Date Sign Title [ X ] Commercial [ ] Industrial [ X ] Residential City of Huntington Beach CA Public Works Department HB -52-Item 6. - 26 ; Pmformed By NDS Pace 39-48 M.P.H. % In Pace 73 °A # Of Vehicles 107 Posted Speed Limit 45 MPH . Accident Rate(Acc/MVM)-= 0.62 State Rate..: 3.35 Approved: City Of Huntington Beach Date: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA Traffic Engineering Speed Survey Remarks # of Lanes Median Bike Lanes Grading Parking [ ) Two [ ] Three [ X ] Four [ ] Six Other [ X ) Raised [ X ] Painted [ ] Painted Center Line [ X ] Yes [ ) No [ X ) Flat [ ] Sloped [ OCFCD Channel [ ] Yes [ X ] No Complete section below to certify a copy of this original survey. This document is a correct copy of the original in the PW Dept, Date Sign Title City of Huntington Beach CA Public Works Department Land Use [XI Commercial [I Industrial [ X ] Residential HB -53-Item 6. - 27 DATE: 411412017 TIME: 09:43-10:05 Speed mph <=10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 ALL Vehicles 2 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 1 2 2 1 2 41 41 3 3 42 4 42 4 43 43 6 6 44 45 45 2 2 7 46 7 46 47 47 3 3 2 48 2 48 49 49 2 2 50 2 50 2 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 EL 38 -0 40 a) Ca_ 42 44 46 48 50 6 8 10 59 60 2 4 Number of Vehicles SPEED PARAMETERS Class Count Range 60th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % I # Below Pace % I # Above Pace ALL 52 30 - 53 44 mph 48 mph 40 - 49 39 75% 15% /8 10% /5 60 62 64 66 68 70 0 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach Location: Atlanta Ave Bet. Magnolia St & Brookhurst St Posted Speed: 45 MPH Project #: 17-1073-002 Eastbound Spot Speeds 51 52 1 52 _ 52 1 52 _ 53 2 53 2 54 54 54 54 55 56 56 56 56 57 58 58 58 58 HB -54-Item 6. - 28 Speed mph ALL Vehicles 46 46 3 Location: Atlanta Ave Bel Magnolia St & Brookhurst St Posted Speed: 45 MPH Project #: 17-1073-002 Westbound Spot Speeds 1 1 1 1 1 6 8 2 4 Number of Vehicles 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 SPEED PARAMETERS Class Count Range 60th Percentile 86th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % 1 8 Below Pace % 1 8 Above Pace ALL 55 _ 33 - 53 42 mph _ 47 mph 38 - 47 41 75% 16% /9 10% / 5 4 66 68 70 0 DATE: 411412017 TIME: 09:43-10:05 33 2 38 -0 40 34 36 a) CL 42 34 36 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 3 2 2 2 3 3 7 4 6 <=.10 10 11 12 12 13 14 14 15 16 16 17 18 18 20 19 20 21 22 22 24 23 24 25 26 26 27 28 28 29 30 30 31 32 32 HB -55-Item 6. - 29 DATE: 411412017 TIME: 09:43-10:05 Speed ALL Vehicles mph 1 0 45 45 7 7 46 46 10 46 46 10 47 47 7 7 48 48 3 48 48 3 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 Speed - MPH 38 40 42 44 1 3 2 4 31 32 33 34 35 36 38 39 2 4 41 10 42 43 44 11 13 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 1 2 37 I 4 40 I 5 Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach Location: Atlanta Ave Bet. Magnolia St & Brookhurst St Posted Speed: 45 MPH Project #: 17A073-002 Eastbound & Westbound Spot Speeds 49 49 3 3 50 50 2 50 50 2 51 52 2 52 52 2 52 53 3 53 3 54 54 54 54 55 56 58 56 58 57 58 58 58 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 68 69 >=70 60 62 64 66 68 70 5 10 15 Number of Vehicles SPEED PARAMETERS Class Count Range 60th Percentile 65th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent Pace in % / # Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 107 30 - 53 43 mph 47 mph 39 - 48 78 73% 16% /18 11% /11 0 HB -56-Item 6. - 30 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA Traffic Engineering Speed Survey Pace 37-46 M.P.H. % In Pace 60 °A, a Of Vehicles 102 Posted Speed Limit 45 M.P.H. # of Lanes Median Bike Lanes Grading Parking Land Use [ ] Two [ ] Three [ ] Four [ X ] Six Other [ X ] Raised [ 1 Painted [ ] Painted Center Line [ X] Yes [] No [ X] Flat [ ] Sloped [ ] OCFCD Channel [ ] Yes [ X ] No [ ] Commercial [ ] industrial [ X ] Residential Date Sign Title City of Huntington Beach CA Public Works Department !Complete section below to certify a copy of this original survey. This document is a correct copy of the original in the PW Dept HB -57-Item 6. - 31 DATE: 3131/2017 TIME: 09:00-09:38 ALL Vehicles 1 2 3 2 2 2 3 6 2 4 4 3 5 3 2 3 Speed mph <=10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 25 27 28 29 30 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach Location: Balsa Ave Bet Springdale St & Edwards St Posted Speed: 45 MPH Project #: 17-1073-003 Eastbound Spot Speeds 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 _l 32 34 36 38 "CS 40 a. 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 0 0 2 4 6 2 4 6 Number of Vehicles Number of Vehicles SPEED PARAMETERS Class Count Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent In Pace % / ft Below Pace % /# Above Pace ALL 51 29 - 51 41 mph 40 mph 39 - 48 32 63% 31% JIB 6% /3 HB -58-Item 6. - 32 DATE: 3131/2017 TIME: 09:00-09:38 Speed mph ALL Vehicles <.10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 2 6 10 12 14 16 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 33 33 1 1 34 34 4 34 34 4 35 4 35 4 36 36 Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach Location: Boise Ave Bet. Springdale St & Edwards St Posted Speed: 46 MPH Project #: 17-1073-003 Westbound Spot Speeds 37 38 39 4 3 3 2 38 'm 40 6 1:3 40 = 40 6 1:3 40 = 41 42 43 4 2 Cl) 42 44 2 44 44 2 44 45 3 45 3 46 2 46 46 2 46 1 47 1 47 48 48 48 48 2 49 2 49 50 50 50 50 51 52 52 52 52 53 54 54 54 54 55 56 56 56 56 57 58 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 2 4 6 Number of Vehicles SPEED PARAMETERS Class Count Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % / # Below Pace % /# Above Pace ALL 51 30 - 53 39 mph 45 mph 32 - 41 31 61% 3% /2 36% /18 60 62 64 66 68 70 0 HB -59-Item 6. - 33 DATE: 3131/2017 TIME: 09:00-09:38 Speed ALL Vehicles mph <=10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 I 1 30 I 2 31 I 1 32 1 7 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 4 6 6 2 7 3 8 8 6 8 6 7 6 4 4 1 3 1 2 1 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 Speed - MPH 48 50 0 5 Number of Vehicles 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach Location: Balsa Ave Bet. Springdale St & Edwards St Posted Speed: 45 MPH Project #: 17-1073-003 Eastbound & Westbound Spot Speeds 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 10 SPEED PARAMETERS Class Count Range 50th Percentile 86th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % I # Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 102 29 - 53 40 mph 46 mph 37 - 46 61 60% 28% /29 12% /12 HB -60-Item 6. - 34 Performed By NDS CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA Traffic Engineering Speed Survey Street Surveyed Between Date Surveyed Time Surveyed 55th % EiOLSA CELICA ST SOUTH ary LIMITS TO LOS PATOS AVE 4/5/17 Pace 21-30 M.P.H. % In Pace 77 % # Of Vehicles 113 Posted Speed Limit 30 M.P.H. Accident Rate(Acc/MVM)= 2.43 State Rate= 3.05 Approved: City Of Hunting -ton Beach Date: Remarks # of Lanes [ X ] Two [ ] Three [ ] Four [ ] Six Other Median [ X ] Raised [ ] Painted [ I Painted Center Line Complete section below to certify a copy of this original survey. Bike Lanes I X] Yes [ ] No This document is a correct copy of the original in the PW Dept. Grading [ X ] Flat [ Sloped [ OCFCD Channel Parking [ X ] Yes [ No Date Sign Title Land Use [1 Commerdal [ ] Industrial [ X ] Residential City of Huntington Beach CA Public Works Department HB -61-Item 6. - 35 Speed mph <=10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ALL Vehicles DATE: 41512017 TIME: 11:00-11:50 7 2 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 3 5 6 5 6 4 6 6 3 1 1 1 Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach Location: Balsa Chica Rd Bet. South City Limit & Los Patos Ave Posted Speed: 30 MPH Project #: 17-1073-005 Northbound Spot Speeds 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 3 2 38 -0 40 CD a) CL 42 (I) 44 46 48 50 52 54 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 56 56 56 57 57 58 58 58 58 59 59 60 60 60 60 61 61 62 62 62 62 63 63 64 64 64 64 65 65 66 66 66 66 67 67 68 68 68 68 69 69 70 >=70 70 >=70 6 0 2 4 0 2 4 6 8 8 Number of Vehicles Number of Vehicles SPEED PARAMETERS Class Count Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent Pace in % / # Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 59 19 - 35 25 mph 29 mph 20- 29 50 85% 1% /1 14% / 8 HB -62-Item 6. - 36 DATE: 41512017 TIME: 11:00-11:50 Speed mph ALL Vehicles <=10 11 12 13 14 16 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 2 2 3 4 6 7 4 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 29 4 29 4 30 30 6 30 30 6 31 3 31 3 32 32 4 32 4 32 33 33 3 3 34 34 3 34 34 3 35 35 36 36 36 36 37 CL 37 CL 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 44 44 44 45 0_ 42 cn 58 60 62 64 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 68 65 6 2 4 Number of Vehicles 57 65 66 67 69 70 SPEED PARAMETERS Class Count Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % Ill Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 54 18- 35 28 mph 32 mph 24 - 33 42 78% 12% 17 10% / 5 0 Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach 46 47 48 48 48 48 49 50 50 50 50 51 52 52 52 52 53 54 54 54 54 55 56 56 56 56 Location: Boise Chica Rd Bet. South City Limit & Los Pates Ave Posted Speed: 30 MPH Project #: 17-1073-005 Southbound Spot Speeds HB -63-Item 6. - 37 0 5 Number of Vehicles 10 15 Speed mph <.10 11 12 13 14 15 16 ALL Vehicles Location: Boisa Chica Rd Bet. South City Limit & Los Patos Ave Posted Speed: 30 MPH Project #: 17-1073-005 Northbound & Southbound Spot Speeds 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 _ 38 40 _ 42 _ 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 SPEED PARAMETERS Class Count Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % (U Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 113 18 - 35 27 mph -- 31 mph 21 - 30 67 77% 5% /6 18% /20 DATE: 415/2017 TIME: 11:00-11:50 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 1 1 4 6 7 7 10 9 11 11 9 0 8 6 3 4 Speed - MPH HB -64-Item 6. - 38 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA Traffic Engineering Speed Survey Street Surveyed BOLSA AVE TOTAL Between EDWARDS ST TO COLDENWEST ST ate Surveyed 5/25/17 Time Surveyed 2:00 PM to 2;50 PM 85th % 42 M.P.H. 35 44 MPH. % In Pace 82% 44 I 3 2 3 I 2 I 5 II# Of Vehicles 100 42 8 8 8 16 Posted Speed Limit 40 MPH, 6 12 Irew Speed Limit 40 M.P.H Accident Rate(Acc/MVM)= 0,45 State Rate= 2.40 Performed By OS Approved: City Of Huntington Beach Date: Robert Stachelski, Transportation Manager R.T.E. 1651 marks # of Lanes Median Bike Lanes Grading Parking Land Use [ ] Two [I Three [ ] Four [ X ] Six Other [ X) Raised [ ] Painted [ ] Painted Center Line H Yes [XI No IX) Flat [ ] Sloped [ ] OCFCD Channel [ ] Yes [ X] No Date Sign Title I X) Commercial [ ] Industrial I X ] Residential City of Huntington Beach CA Public Works Department Complete section below to certify a copy of this original survey. This document is a correct copy of the original in the PW Dept. HB -65-Item 6. - 39 Date Surveyed Time Surveyed 85th % Pace % In Pace Of Vehicles Posted Speed Limit New Speed Limit 27-.36 MPH, 82 % 147 35 M.P.H. Accident Rate(Acc/MVM)= 0.73 State Rate-- Approved: City Of Huntington Beach Date: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA Traffic Engineering Speed Survey Remarks Several full access commercial driveways along the north portion of the street segment, street segment located along multi-family residential properties on both sides with on-street parking and cross traffic. Due to these conditions the posting of 35 mph is reasonable and safe to facilitate the efficient and orderly flow of traffic. # of Lanes [ X ] Two [ ] Three [ ) Four [ ] Six Other Median [ ] Raised [XI Painted [ ] Painted Center Line Bike Lanes [ X] Yes [ ] No Grading [XI Flat [I Sloped [ ] OCFCD Channel Parking IX] Yes Land Use [ ] Commercial [ ] Industrial IX] Residential Complete section below to certify a copy of this origin& survey. This document is a correct copy of the original in the PW Dept. [I No Date Sign Title City of Huntington Beach CA Public Works Department HB -66-Item 6. - 40 DATE: 41312017 TIME: 09:00-09:45 Speed mph <=10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ALL Vehicles 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 2 2 3 5 4 4 4 4 3 35 4 36 6 37 3 a_ 10 12 14 16 8 20 22 24 26 28 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 7 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Si 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >7.70 6 2 38 38 4 39 5 13 40 40 3 41 4 42 2 CL 42 (/) 43 1 44 44 1 45 46 46 47 1 48 I- 48 1 49 50 51 50 1 1 52 52 53 0 2 4 6 Number of Vehicles SPEED PARAMETERS Class Count Range 50th Percentile 55th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent Pace in % / # Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 72 25 - 52 36 mph 42 mph 29 - 38 41 57% 9% 17 34% 124 Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach Location: Boise Chica Rd Bet. Los Patos Ave & Warner Ave Posted Speed: 35 MPH Project #: 17-1073-006 Northbound Spot Speeds 30 32 34 36 HB -67-Item 6. - 41 Speed mph 4=10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ALL Vehicles 5 1 4 3 5 4 4 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 1 39 60 60 4 2 Number of Vehicles 62 64 66 68 70 0 Location: Bolsa Chica Rd Bet. Los Patos Ave & Warner Ave Posted Speed: 35 MPH Project #: 17-1073-006 Southbound Spot Speeds 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 -C 28 30 32 34 36 38 "0 40 U) U) a 42 (1) 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 SPEED PARAMETERS Class Count Range 50th Percentile 86th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # In Pace Percent in Pace %/# Below Pace %1# Above Pace ALL 75 21-46 30 mph 36 mph 23 - 32 46 61% 6% /5 32% / 24 DATE: 4/312017 TIME: 09:00-09:45 40 41 42 43 HB -68-Item 6. - 42 6 37 8 36 5 39 6 2 38 C 40 40 U) U) 41 3 4 42 2 ci 42 GO 43 1 44 1 45 1 46 47 1 48 48 1 49 50 50 51 1 52 52 53 54 54 55 56 56 57 58 58 59 60 60 61 62 62 63 64 64 65 66 66 67 68 68 69 70 >=70 0 44 46 Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach DATE: 4/3(2017 TIME: 09:00-09:45 Speed mph <=10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ALL Vehicles 22 4 23 5 24 5 25 7 26 3 27 7 28 7 29 9 30 9 Location: Botsa Chica Rd Bet. Los Patos Ave & Warner Ave Posted Speed: 35 MPH Project #: 17-1073-006 Northbound & Southbound Spot Speeds 10 12 14 1 16 18 20 22 E 24 26 r 30 31 9 32 ' 32 9 33 34 35 8 34 1 36 36 9 5 Number of Vehicles SPEED PARAMETERS Class Count Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent In Pace % (# Below Pace % I # Above Pace ALL 147 21 - 52 32 mph 39 mph 27 - 36 82 56% 17% /25 28% /40 10 HB -69-Item 6. - 43 Time Surveyed 85th % Pace % In Pace I/ Of Vehicles Posted Speed Limit New Speed Limit 37-46 MPH, 77 % 123 45 M.P.H. Accident Rate(Acc/MVM)= 1.16 State Rate= 240 Performed By NDS Approved, City Of Huntington Beach Date: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA Traffic Engineering Speed Survey Remarks Several commercial driveway locations at the south, central, and north areas of the street segment. Left turn pocket areas with limited visibility and several locations of residential cross traffic along the segment. Due to these conditions a posting of 45 mph is reasonable and prudent to facility the safe and efficient flow of traffic, # of Lanes [ ] Two [ ] Three [ 3 Four [ X ] Six Other Median [ X I Raised [ ] Painted [ ] Painted Center Line Complete section below to certify a copy of this original survey. Bike Lanes [ X ] Yes [ ] No This document is a correct copy of the original in the PW Dept. Grading [ X ] Flat [ ] Sloped [ ] OCFCD Channel Parking [ X] Yes I] No Date Sign Title Land Use [X) Commercial [ 3 Industrial [ X ] Residential City of Huntington Beach CA Public Works Department HB -70-Item 6. - 44 12 13 14 16 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 26 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 1 3 3 1 Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach DATE: 4/512017 TIME: 09:00-09:45 Speed I ALL Vehicles mph <=10 11 39 3 40 3 41 2 42 4 Location: Boise Chica Rd Bet. Warner Ave & Edinger Ave Posted Speed: 45 MPH Project #: 17-1073-007 Northbound Spot Speeds 10 12 14 16 18 20 j 22 _ 24 26 28 30 j 32 34 36 CI_ 38 -0 40 a) o. 42 43 43 4 4 44 44 3 44 3 44 45 45 5 5 46 46 3 46 46 3 47 47 5 5 48 48 4 48 48 4 49 49 6 6 50 50 3 50 50 3 3 52 2 52 52 2 52 2 53 2 53 54 54 54 54 55 56 56 56 56 57 58 58 58 58 59 60 Co 60 Co 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 2 6 Number of Vehicles SPEED PARAMETERS Glass Count Range 60th Percentile 86th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % I# Below Pace % / 4 Above Pace ALL 60 33 - 54 45 mph 50 mph 42 - 51 39 65% 26% /10 9% /5 62 64 66 70 HB -71-Item 6. - 45 DATE: 4/512017 TIME: 09:00-09:45 ALL Vehicles 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 Speed mph <=10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 1 2 2 3 4 5 32 34 38 39 40 41 42 5 5 3 4 6 38 -0 40 a) a) 0. 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 4 4 4 4 2 1 44 46 48 49 50 51 52 53 64 56 1 1 50 52 64 56 56 57 58 58 59 60 60 61 62 62 63 64 64 65 66 66 67 66 68 69 70 Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach Location: Boisa Chica Rd Bet. Warner Ave & Edinger Ave Posted Speed: 45 MPH Project #: 17-1073-007 Southbound Spot Speeds 8 2 4 6 Number of Vehicles SPEED PARAMETERS Class Count Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % 14 Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 63 31 -53 41 mph 46 mph 38 , 45 44 70% 12% /8 18% /11 HB -72-Item 6. - 46 Speed - MPH 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 1 32 33 3 34 2 35 3 36 5 37 8 38 8 39 8 40 6 41 6 42 10 43 8 44 7 45 9 48 7 47 7 48 5 49 6 50 4 51 4 52 2 53 3 54 1 DATE: 415/2017 TIME: 09:00-09:45 Speed I ALL Vehicles mph <=10 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach Location: Boise Chica Rd Bet. Warner Ave & Edinger Ave Posted Speed: 45 MPH Project #: 17-1073-007 Northbound & Southbound Spot Speeds 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 40 42 44 46 48 60 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 0 5 10 15 Number of Vehicles SPEED PARAMETERS Class Count Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # In Pace Percent In Pace % / tt Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 123 31 - 54 43 mph 49 mph 37 - 46 77 63% 11% 114 27% /32 HB -73-Item 6. - 47 MPH SH 60 59 58 57 56 55 54 53 52 51 50 Street Surveyed [Between Pate Surveyed Time Surveyed 85 DELAWARE ST GARFIELD AVE TO ELLIS AVE 3-27-17 3:05 PM to 3:35 PM 37 M.P.H. 0 0 0 0 Pace 31 - 40 M.P.H. 01 0 01 0 0 0 01 01 0 88% 0 % In Pace 0 01 01 0 0 1# Of Vehicles 01 01 0 106 01 0 0 1 Posted Speed Limit 35 M.P.H. 11 01 1 21 1 1 2 3 3 pew Speed Limit 11 21 1 35 MPH. Accident Rate(Acc/MVM)= 1.14 State Rate= 3.05 [performed By DS 31 Date: Approved: City Of Huntington Beach TOTAL CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA o o o o Traffic Engineering Speed Survey Robert Stachelslci, Transportation Manager R.T.E. 1651 [ X ] Two 11 Three [ ] Four [ ] Six Other [ ] Raised [ ] Painted [ X ] Painted Center Line Complete section below to certify a copy of this original survey. [ ] Yes [ X I No (L (t:-HoL II II [ X ] Flat 11 Sloped [ ] OCFCD Channel [ X ] Yes [ ] No [ X 3 Commercial 11 Industrial [ X ] Residential ir»11111111111111 1 11..11 Iltt.inlAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 1 0 0 0 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 6 35 34 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 # of Lanes Median Bike Lanes Grading Parking Land Use HB -74-Item 6. - 48 Accident Rate(Acc/MVM). 0.50 state Rate= Performed By NDS Approved: City Of Huntington Beach Date: Robert Stachelski, Transportation Manager R.T.E. 1651 3.35 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA Traffic Engineering Speed Survey 34-43 M.P,1-1. %In Pace 60 Va P Of Vehicles 130 Posted Speed Limit 40 MPH, New Speed Limit 40 M.P.H. # of Lanes Median Bike Lanes Grading Parking Land Use [ ] Two [ ] Three [ X ] Four [ ] Six Other Remarks On-street parking along the south side of the street segment exists with related parking activity. At the east end of the segment, along the south side are several full access commercial driveways with frequent cross traffic, and along the north end fronts a high school with related pedestrian activity. Due to these conditions, a 5 mph reduction is applied for a posted speed limit of 40 mph to facilitate the safe and orderly flow of traffic, Complete section below to certify a copy of this original survey. This document is a correct copy of the original in the PW Dept. Date Sign Title City of Huntington Beach CA Public Works Department [ 1 Raised [XI Painted [ Painted Center Line [ I Yes [ X ] No [ X ] Flat [ ] Sloped [ ] OCFCD Channel [ X ] Yes [I No [ X I Commercial [ ] Industrial [ X ] Residential HB -75-Item 6. - 49 DATE: 41312017 TIME: 10:00-10:45 ALL Vehicles 2 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 4 4 2 2 5 3 4 2 3 2 2 Speed mph <=10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 67 58 59 BO 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 66 69 >=70 Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach Location: Edinger Ave Bet. Boise Chica Rd & Springdale St Posted Speed: 45 MPH Project #: 17-1073-008 Eastbound Spot Speeds 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 2 38 2 38 Ti 40 Ti 40 a) a) 77- 77- 42 = 42 = CO CO 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 2 2 4 6 4 6 Number of Vehicles Number of Vehicles SPEED PARAMETERS Class Count Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % if # Below Pace % if # Above Pace ALL 60 23 - 53 36 mph 43 mph 32 - 41 31 52% 25% /15 24% 114 HB -76-Item 6. - 50 3 3 3 3 4 4 30 31 32 33 34 35 30 32 34 6 2 4 Number of Vehicles ALL Vehicles 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 1 6 36 37 6 177.= 4 38 39 6 5 40 41 5 42 6 43 4 44 3 44 45 1 6 46 1 47 1 48 48 1 49 50 50 1 51 52 52 53 54 54 55 56 56 57 58 58 59 60 60 61 62 62 63 64 64 65 66 66 67 68 68 69 70 >=70 0 SPEED PARAMETERS Class Count Range 50th Percentile 86th Percentile 19 MPH Pace # In Pace Percent Pace in % / # Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 70 29 - 53 38 mph 43 mph 34 - 43 47 67% _ 18% /13 15% /10 Speed mph <=10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 26 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach DATE: 41312017 TIME: 10:00-10:45 Location: Edinger Ave Bet. Boise Chica Rd & Springdale St Posted Speed: 45 MPH Project #: 17-1073-008 Westbound Spot Speeds HB -77-Item 6. - 51 DATE: 41312017 TIME: 10:00-10:45 Speed mph <=10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ALL Vehicles 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 2 2 3 5 6 6 5 6 8 9 7 6 10 8 9 8 7 5 3 2 1 2 2 Speed - MPH Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach Location: Edinger Ave Bet. Boise Chica Rd & Springdale St Posted Speed: 45 MPH Project #: 17-1073-008 Eastbound & Westbound Spot Speeds 10 12 14 6 5 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 70 0 5 10 15 Number of Vehicles SPEED PARAMETERS Class Count Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent Pace In % / # Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 130 23 - 53 38 mph _ 43 mph 34 - 43 78 60% 25% /33 15% /19 HB -78-Item 6. - 52 48 Pace 35 - 44 M.P.H. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA Traffic Engineering Speed Survey Street Surveyed EDINGER AVE OF 0I 0 Between SPRINGDALE ST TO GOLDENWEST ST Date Surveyed 4-24-17 Sue Surveyed 10:00 AM to 10:45 AM 50 85th % 43 M.P.H. 49 47 46 511% In Pace 80% 45 8118 Of Vehicles 119 h40 h21 # of Lanes [ 1 Two [ ] Three [ ] Four [ X ] Six Other Median [ 1 Raised [ X ] Painted [1 Painted Center Line Compiete section below to certify a copy of this original survey. Bike Lanes [ X ] Yes [1 No This document is a correct copy of the original ifl the PW Dept. Grading [ X ] Flat 1 ] Sloped 1 1 OCFCD Channel Parking [ ] Yes [ X 1 No Date Sign Title Land Use [X] Commercial [ ] Industrial 1X J Residential City of Huntington Beach CA Public Works Department This document is a correct copy of the original ifl the PW Dept. HB -79-Item 6. - 53 Pace 30-39 M.P.H. % In Pace 73 % # Of Vehicles Posted Speed Limit 101 40 M.P.H. Accident Rate(Acc/MVM)= Approved: City Of Huntington Beach Date: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA Traffic Engineering Speed Survey # of Lanes [ 1 Two [ ] Three [ ] Four [ X J Six Other Median [ X ] Raised [ X ] Painted [1 Painted Center Line Complete section below to certify a copy of this original survey.1 Bike Lanes IX ] Yes I ] No This document is a correct copy of the original in the PW Dept. Grading IX] Flat [ J Sloped [ OCFCD Channel Parking [ 1 Yes [ X ] No Date Sign Title Land Use [ X] Commercial [ J Industrial [ ] Residential City of Huntington Beach CA Public Works Department HB -80-Item 6. - 54 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 2 38 <=10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 DATE: 41312017 TIME: 09:00-09:30 Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach Location: Edinger Ave Bet. Goldenwest St & Beach Blvd Posted Speed: 40 MPH Project #: 17-1073-010 Eastbound Spot Speeds 0 2 4 6 8 Number of Vehicles SPEED PARAMETERS Class Count Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # In Pace Percent in Pace % /# Below Pace °A 111 Above Pace ALL 50 20 - 43 33 mph 37 mph 29- 38 36 72% 18% /9 10% /5 HB -81-Item 6. - 55 58 60 62 64 Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach DATE: 4/3/2017 TIME: 00:00-09:30 Location: Edinger Ave Bet. Goldenwest St & Beach Blvd Posted Speed: 40 MPH Project #: 17-1073-010 Westbound Spot Speeds Speed mph 38 ALL Vehicles 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 47- 38 11 12 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 10 12 46 48 50 52 54 56 2 4 6 8 Number of Vehicles SPEED PARAMETERS Class Count Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % I # Below Pace % (U Above Pace ALL 51 21 - 60 34 mph 39 mph 30 - 39 39 76% 13% 17 10% / 5 66 68 70 0 HB -82-Item 6. - 56 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 24 1: 28 30 32 34 <=1 0 11 12 13 15 16 17" 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 10 : Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach DATE: 41312017 TIME: 09:00-09:30 Location: Edinger Ave Bet. Goldenwest St & Beach Blvd Posted Speed: 40 MPH Project #: 17-1073-010 Speed mph ALL Vehicles Eastbound & Westbound Spot Speeds 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 44 46 48 50 52 54 _I 56 58 60 62 64 d 66 68 70 0 5 10 15 Number of Vehicles SPEED PARAMETERS Class Count Range 60th Percentile 86th Percentile 10 MPH Paco # in Pace Percent Pace in % / # Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 101 20 - 60 33 mph 38 mph 30 - 39 73 72% 17% 116 10% /10 HB -83-Item 6. - 57 0 25 0 24 1 0 23 0 22 0 0 0 21 0 0 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 3 12 11 10 Robert Stachelski, Transportation Manager R.T.E. 1651 0 0 0 Remarks The street segment is shared with the City of Westminster. On-street parking exists on the eastern half along the south side. Visibility limitations related to design speed due to the vertical curve, and a full access driveway to a residential complex exists on the south side. These conditions may not be readily apparent. A 5 mph reduction is applied for a posted speed limit of 40 mph to facilitate the safe and orderly flow of traffic. 0 0 0 0 Street Surveyed Between pate Surveyed Time Surveyed EDINGER AVENUE 13EAC1113LVD TO NEWLAND ST 6/15/17 9:05 AM to 9:35 AM 1 2 1 2 0 0 1 41 1 7 61 7 6 71 6 8 31 8 3 Posted Speed Limit 13 11 New Speed Limit 40 M.P.H. 40 MPH. lAccident Rate(Acc/MVIVI). 0.88 state Rate= 3.35 performed By DS 5 21 5 85th % 2 Pace 0 3 % In Pace 5 4 Of Vehicles 7 43 M.P,H, 35 - 44 MPH. 87% i ll # # TOTAL CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 0 0 0 Traffic Engineering Speed Survey Approved: City Of Huntington Beach # of Lanes [ X ] Two [1 Three [ XI Four [ J Six Other Median [ ] Raised [ X ] Painted [ X ] Painted Center Line Bike Lanes [ ] Yes [ X ] No Grading [1 Flat [ X ] Sloped [ ] OCFCD Channel Parking [XI Yes [ 1 No Land Use [ X ] Commercial [ I Industrial [ X ] Residential EB WB 0 0 4 6 7 0 MPH 60 59 8 57 6 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 6 [: 35 34 33 32 31 30 29 Date: 'Complete section below to certify a copy of this original survey. This document is a correct copy of the original in the PW Dept. Date Sign Title City of Huntington Beach CA Public Works Department 28 27 26 HB -84-Item 6. - 58 EDWARDS ST BOLSA TO NORTH CITY LIMIT 10:37 AM to 11:13 AM 47 MPH, Street Surveyed Between Time Surveyed 85th % Date Surveyed 3-31-17 Accident Rate(Acc/MVM)= 0.80 State Rate= CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA Traffic Engineering Speed Survey Pace 37-46 MPH. % In Pace 61 % # Of Vehicles Posted Speed Limit 100 40 M.P.H. Remarks Street segment nearly entirely within the City of Westminster which has a posted speed limit of 40 mph based on a traffic and engineering survey. The street segment fronts a regional shopping mall with transit operations and pedestrian activity which may not be readily apparent. Posting of 40 mph would be consistent with City of Westminster posting and would facilitate the safe and orderly flow of traffic. # of Lanes Median Bike Lanes Grading Parking Land Use [ ] Two I ] Three IX ] Four [ 3 Six Other [ X ] Raised [ ] Painted [ ] Painted Center Line Complete section below to certify a copy of this original survey. (XI Yes [I No This document is a correct copy of the original in the PW Dept (X ] Flat [ ] Sloped [ ] OCFCD Channel [ ] Yes [XI No Date Sign Title (X Commercial [ ] Industrial [ X ] Residential City of Huntington Beach CA Public Works Department HB -85-Item 6. - 59 Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach Location: Edwards St Bet. Boise Ave & North City Limit Posted Speed: 40 MPH Project #: 17-1073-012 Northbound Spot Speeds 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 la_ 38 '0 40 1.) a. 4 44 46 60 52 64 56 58 66 62 64 66 68 70 3 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 1 1 1 1 4 DATE: 313112017 TIME: 10:37-11:13 Speed mph ALL Vehicles 38 38 5 5 39 2 39 2 40 40 2 2 41 4 41 4 42 42 3 3 2 43 2 43 44 44 4 4 4 45 4 45 46 6 46 6 2 47 2 47 49 49 3 3 2 49 2 49 50 51 51 1 1 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 0 2 4 6 Number of Vehicles SPEED PARAMETERS Class Count Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % 1# Below Pace % 1# Above Pace ALL 50 29 - 51 42 mph 47 mph _37 - 46 __ 35 70% 14% / 7 16% /8 HB -86-Item 6. - 60 -0 40 a) a) 0- 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach Location: Edwards St Bet. Balsa Ave & North City Limit Posted Speed: 40 MPH Project #: 17-1073-012 Southbound Spot Speeds 10 12 14 16 20 22 24 26 30 32 i 34 ! 36 38 SPEED PARAMETERS Class Count Range 60th Percentile 66th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % I# Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 80 26 - 53 39 mph 47 mph 36 - 44 29 58% 16% / 8 26% 113 DATE: 3/3112017 TIME: 10:37-11:13 ALL Vehicles 1 2 1 4 5 2 4 3 4 1 3 2 2 3 3 3 4 1 Speed mph 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 <=10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 HB -87-Item 6. - 61 Speed - MPH DATE; 3131/2017 TIME: 10:37-11:13 Speed ALL Vehicles mph <=10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 16 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 3 1 6 1 8 2 8 8 6 3 7 6 4 5 10 61 62 62 63 64 64 65 66 66 67 68 68 69 70 >=70 Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach Location; Edwards St Bet. Boise Ave & North City Limit Posted Speed: 40 MPH Project #: 17-1073-012 Northbound & Southbound Spot Speeds 34 _ 36 38 40 42 44 7 44 44 7 44 45 45 7 7 46 46 6 6 47 47 6 6 48 48 3 48 48 3 49 49 6 6 50 50 50 50 51 51 2 2 52 52 52 52 53 I 54 54 54 54 55 56 56 56 56 57 58 58 58 58 59 BO 60 BO 60 Number of Vehicles SPEED PARAMETERS Class Count Range 60th Percentile 86th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent Pace In % / # Below Pace % I # Above Pace ALL 100 28 - 53 41 mph 47 mph 37 - 46 61 61% ' 22% 122 17% 117 HB -88-Item 6. - 62 Pate 36-45 M.P.H. % In Pace 63 % It Of Vehicles Posted Speed Limit 134 45 MPH. Accident Rate(Acc/MVM)= 0A3 State Rate= 3.35 Performed By Approved: City Of Huntington Beach Date: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA Traffic Engineering Speed Survey Remarks Equestrian crossings exist across the west portion of the street segment which may not be readily apparent, several locations of residential and commercial cross traffic, and adjacent to a public park with pedestrian and vehicle on-street parking activity. The posting of 45 mph is reasonable and prudent to facilitate the safe and efficient flow of traffic along the street segment. # of Lanes [ ] Two [ X ] Three [ X ] Four [ Six Other Median [ 1 Raised [ X Painted [ ] Painted Center Line Complete section below to certify a copy of this original survey. Bike Lanes [ X ] Yes [ ] No This document is a correct copy of the original in the PW Dept. Grading [X ] Flat [ Sloped [ ] OCFCD Channel Parking [ X ] Yes [ X ] No Date Sign Title Land Use [XI Commercial [ ] Industrial [ X ] Residential City of Huntington Beach CA Public Works Department HB -89-Item 6. - 63 4 0 2 Number of Vehicles 4 3 45 46 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 4 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 6 44 44 4 38 40 6 (1) eL 42 Cl) 4 6 6 4 6 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 SPEED PARAMETERS Class Count Range 50th Percentile 88th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % / it Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 68 31 -54 42 mph 48 mph 36 -45 44 65% 5% / 4 30% / 20 1 Speed mpti <=10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 26 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 ALL vellcies 34 35 36 1 3 Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach Location: Ellis Ave Bet. Edwards St & Gothard St Posted Speed: 45 MPH Project #: 17.1073-013 Eastbound Spot Speeds DATE: 4112120'17 TIME: 11:00-12:00 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 HB -90-Item 6. - 64 DATE: 411212017 TIME: 11:00-12:00 Speed mph <-,10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 ALL Vehicles 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 1 2 3 4 3 4 3 4 4 5 4 43 5 43 5 44 4 44 4 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 2 38 a. 42 "0 40 a) a) Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach Location: Ellis Ave Bet. Edwards St & Gothard St Posted Speed: 45 MPH Project #: 17-1073-013 Westbound Spot Speeds 44 46 48 50 52 J 54 45 46 3 46 3 47 4 47 4 4 48 4 48 2 49 2 49 2 50 2 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 J 56 56 J 56 57 58 J 58 58 J 58 59 60 J 60 60 J 60 61 62 J 62 62 J 62 63 64 64 64 64 66 66 66 66 66 67 68 68 68 68 69 70 ›.70 70 ›.70 0 2 4 6 Number of Vehicles SPEED PARAMETERS Class Count Range 60th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % 1# Below Pace % i # Above Pace ALL 66 32- 50 41 mph 47 mph 39 - 48 42 64% 30% /20 7% /4 HB -91-Item 6. - 65 DATE: 4112/2017 TIME: 11:00-12:00 Speed mph ALL Vehicles 45 45 9 9 46 46 6 46 46 6 47 47 8 8 48 48 7 48 48 7 31 32 34 36 38 40 42 Speed - MPH 44 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 3 4 6 6 8 7 9 9 10 8 10 9 <=10 10 11 12 12 13 14 14 15 16 16 17 18 18 20 19 20 21 22 22 23 24 24 25 26 26 27 28 28 29 30 30 Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach Location: Ellis Ave Bet. Edwards St & Gothard St Posted Speed: 45 MPH Project #: 17-1073-013 Eastbound & Westbound Spot Speeds 49 49 4 4 50 50 4 50 50 4 51 51 2 2 52 2 52 52 2 52 53 1 53 1 64 1 54 64 1 54 55 56 56 56 56 57 58 58 58 58 59 60 60 60 60 61 62 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 5 10 15 Number of Vehicles SPEED PARAMETERS Class Count Range 60th Percentile 86th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % 14 Below Pace % 14 Above Pace ALL 134 31 - 54 42 mph 413 mph 36 - 45 85 63% 10% /14 27% /35 64 66 68 70 0 HB -92-Item 6. - 66 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA Traffic Engineering Speed Survey Street Surveyed ELLIS AVENUE MPH 60 etween GOTHARD ST TO MAIN ST ale Surveyed 414117 ime Surveyed 1:35 PM to 1:45 PM 5th % 42 MPH. 42 41 40 _ 10 5 6 5 1 11 liPosted Speed Limit 7 10 17 pew Speed Limit 1 40 MPH 40 MPH, 39 38 cident Rate(Acc/MVM)= 0.70 State Rate= 3.35 37 36 erformed By DS 35 Approved: City Of Huntington Beach Date: Robert Stachelski, Transportation Manager 12,T,E, 1651 emarks # of Lanes [ X 1 Two [X] Three [ ] Four [ ] Six Other Median [ 1 Raised [ X ] Painted f ] Painted Center Line Complete section below to certify a copy of this origin& survey.] Bike Lanes [ X ] Yes E ] No This document is a correct copy of the original in the PW Dept. Grading [ 1 Flat [ X ] Sloped [ ] OCFCD Channel Parking [ X ] Yes [1 No Date Sign Title Land Use 1X ] Commercial 1 1 Industrial [X] Residential City of Huntington Beach CA Public Works Department HB -93-Item 6. - 67 Pace 37-46 M.P.H. % In Pace 77 % # Of Vehicles 101 Posted Speed Limit 40 MPH. Accident Rate(Acc/MVM)= 1.31 State Rate.- 3.35 Approved: City Of Huntington Beach Date: # of Lanes Median Bike Lanes Grading Parking Land Use [ I Two [ ] Three [ X ] Four [I Six Other [ ] Raised [ X 1 Painted [ X ] Yes [ I No [XI Flat [ X ] Sloped [ 1 OCFCD Channel [J Yes [Xl No [ X] Commercial [ ] Industrial [ Xj Residential [ ] Painted Center Line CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA Traffic Engineering Speed Survey Remarks Numerous closely spaced full access commercial driveways exist along the west portion of the street segment resulting in significant cross traffic which may not be readily apparent. Intersecting residential streets and driveways with design speed related visibility limitations due to the vertical curve along the eastern portion of the street segment. Due to these reasons a posted speed limit of 40 mph is reasonable and prudent to facilitate the safe and orderly flow of traffic. Date Sign Title City of Huntington Beach CA Public Works Department Complete section below to certify a copy of this original survey. This document is a cocrect copy of the original in the PW Dept. HB -94-Item 6. - 68 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 j 24 26 28 30 1 32 34 2 38 -0 40 0_42 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 0 2 4 Number of Vehicles 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach DATE: 4/712017 TIME: 10:00-10:20 Location: Ellis Ave Bet. Beach Blvd & Newland St Posted Speed: 40 MPH Project #: 17-1073-014 Eastbound Spot Speeds 8 10 SPEED PARAMETERS Class Count Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace Yo I # Below Pace % I # Above Pace ALL 51 33 - 55 42 mph 46 mph 37 - 46 - 40 J 78% 7% 14 14% 17 HB -95-Item 6. - 69 6 8 2 4 Number of Vehicles 62 64 66 68 70 0 TIME: 10:00-10:20 Project #: 17-1073-014 Posted Speed: 40 MPH 60 60 Westbound Spot Speeds Speed mph (=10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 ALL Vehicles 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 M 38 1:3 40 a) Ct. 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 SPEED PARAMETERS Class Count Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % I # Below Pace %1# Above Pace ALL 50 27 - 57 41 mph 45 mph 37 - 46 38 76% 18% 19 6% 1 3 Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach DATE: 4/712017 Location: Ellis Ave Bet. Beach Blvd & Newland St HB -96-Item 6. - 70 44 46 1)=2= 41 42 10 43 44 45 46 10 47 Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach DATE: 4/712017 Location: Ellis Ave Bet. Beach Blvd & Newland St TIME: 10:00-10:20 Posted Speed: 40 MPH Project #: 17-1073-014 Eastbound & Westbound Spot Speeds Speed mph ALL Vehicles <=z1 0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 10 2 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 37 38 39 40 2 38 12 48 49 50 61 52 53 66 57 68 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >-,70 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 5 10 15 Number of Vehicles SPEED PARAMETERS Class Count Range 50th Percentile 86th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent Pace in % / # Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 101 27 - 57 41 mph 46 mph 37 - 46 78 77% 12% /13 10% /10 HB -97-Item 6. - 71 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA Traffic Engineering Speed Survey Pace 33-42 MPH. % In Pace ' 73% Of Vehicles 146 Posted Speed Limit 45 M.P.H. New Speed Limit 45 M.P.H. Accident Rate(Acc/MVM)= 1,11 State Rate= Performed By NDS Approved: City Of Huntington Beach Date: Robert Stacheiski, Transportation Manager R.T.E. 1651 3.35 Remarks # of Lanes [ ] Two [ ] Three [ X ] Four [ X J Six Other Median [ X ] Raised [ ] Painted [ ] Painted Center Line Complete section below to certify a copy of this original survey. Bike Lanes [ X ] Yes [1 No This document is a correct copy of the original in the PW Dept. Grading [ X ] Flat [] Sloped [I OCFCD Channel Parking ] Yes [XI No Date Sign Title Land Use [I Commercial [ X ] Industrial [ X 1 Residential City of Huntington Beach CA Public Works Department HB -98-Item 6. - 72 Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach Location: Garfield Ave Bet. Goldenwest St & Main St Posted Speed: 45 MPH Project #: 17-1073-015 Eastbound Spot Speeds 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 r-•':••• • • •••-• 36 38 -0 40 a) a) 0_ 42 44 1 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 0 2 4 6 Number of Vehicles 8 Speed mph <=10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 ALL Vehicles 32 33 34 35 44 41 42 43 44 45 36 37 38 39 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 4 4 2 2 6 6 4 6 6 5 6 4 4 6 6 4 1 1 3 1 DATE: 4/1212017 TIME: 14:15-15:00 >=70 SPEED PARAMETERS Class Count Franoe 60th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent Pace In % /# Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 77 32 - 51 41 mph 46 mph — 36 - 45 50 65% 15% /12 20°,41 /15 HB -99-Item 6. - 73 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 2 38 "Cl 40 a) 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 DATE: 411212017 TIME: 14:15-15:00 ALL Vehicles 6 7 8 9 9 7 6 3 2 3 2 1 3 1 1 1 Speed mph <=10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach Location: Garfield Ave Bet. Goldenwest St & Main St Posted Speed: 45 MPH Project #: 17-1073-015 Westbound Spot Speeds 2 4 6 8 10 Number of Vehicles SPEED PARAMETERS Class Count Range 60th Percentile 86th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % / # Below Pace % 1# Above Pace ALL 69 33 -48 37 mph 42 mph 33 - 42 60 87% 0% 1 0 14% 19 HB -100-Item 6. - 74 Location: Garfield Ave Bet. Goldenwest St & Main St Posted Speed: 45 MPH Project #: 17-1073-015 Eastbound & Westbound Spot Speeds 10 _ 12 _ 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 im 48 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 0 5 10 15 Number of Vehicles SPEED PARAMETERS Class Count Range 60th Percentile 86th Percentile 10 MPH Pace it in Pace Percent in Pace % I # Below Pace % /# Above Pace ALL 146 32 - 51 39 mph 45 mph 33 - 42 106 73% 1% /2 27% /38 DATE: 4/12/2017 TIME: 14:15-15:00 Speed mph <=1 0 ALL Vehicles 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 24 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 2 8 11 12 14 14 11 12 9 7 8 6 6 9 6 6 4 1 1 1 Speed - MPH >=74 Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach HB -101-Item 6. - 75 o o o 0 o o o 0 0 0 o o o 0 0 o o o a o o o o o o o 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 0 o o o o o # of Lanes [ ] Two [ ] Three [ X ] Four [ ] Six Other Median [ X] Raised [ ] Painted [ ] Painted Center Line Complete section below to certify a copy of this original survey. Bike Lanes [ X] Yes [ ] No This document is a correct copy of the original in the PW Dept. Grading X] Flat [ X ] Sloped [ ] OCFCD Channel Parking [ X ] Yes [J No Date Sign Title Land Use [ X ] Commercial [ I Industrial [ X ] Residential City of Huntington Beach CA Public Works Department HB -102-Item 6. - 76 Time Surveyed 85th % Pace % In Pace # Of Vehicles Posted Speed Limit New Speed Limit 35-44 M.P.H. 67 % 102 45 MPH. Accident Rate(Acc/MVM)= 1.00 State Ratet- Approved: City Of Huntington Beach Date: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA Traffic Engineering Speed Survey # of Lanes Median Bike Lanes Grading Parking Land Use [ ] Two [1 Three [ X ] Four [ ] Six Other [ X ] Raised [ ] Painted [ X ] Yes I ] No X) Flat [ ] Sloped I ] OCFCD Channel [ ] Yes [XI No [ X ] Commercial [ 1 Industrial [ X ] Residential This document is a correct copy of the original in the PW Dept. Date Sign Title City of Huntington Beach CA Public Works Department [ ] Painted Center Line Complete section below to certify a copy of this original survey. HB -103-Item 6. - 77 Speed mph ALL Vehicles 34 36 2 38 -0 40 CD 0. 42 1 2 3 3 6 6 6 6 6 2 2 44 46 t -L 48 50 t 32 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 66 69 >=70 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 <=10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 0 DATE: 4111/2017 TIME: 10:40-11:01 Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach Location: Garfield Ave Bet. Beach Blvd & Magnolia St Posted Speed: 45 MPH Project #: 17-1073-017 Eastbound Spot Speeds 2 4 Number of Vehicles SPEED PARAMETERS Class Count Range 60th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % /# Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 51 33 - 52 40 mph 44 mph 35 - 44 _ 43 84% 1% / 1 14% /7 HB -104-Item 6. - 78 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 1 3 6 8 10 0 2 4 Number of Vehicles DATE: 411112017 TIME: 10:40-11:01 Speed ALL VehWes mph SPEED PARAMETERS Class Count Range 60th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % 1 U Below Pace % i # Above Pace , ALL 51 34 - 47 40 mph 44 mph 35 - 44 44 86% 1% / 1 12% 1 6 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 0_42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach Location: Garfield Ave Bet. Beach Blvd & Magnolia St Posted Speed: 46 MPH Project #: 17-1073-017 Westbound Spot Speeds HB -105-Item 6. - 79 10 15 5 Number of Vehicles 0 Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach Location: Garfield Ave Bet. Beach Blvd & Magnolia St Posted Speed: 45 MPH Project #: 17-1073-017 Eastbound & Westbound Spot Speeds 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 SPEED PARAMETERS Class Count Range 60th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % 11# Below Pace % 1 tt Above Pace ALL 102 33 - 52 40 mph 44 mph 35 - 44 87 85% _ 1% 12 13% 1 13 Speed mph <=10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 ALL Vehicles DATE: 411112017 TIME: 10:40-11:01 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 69 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 1 1 5 6 3 10 12 14 12 13 8 4 3 4 3 1 1 1 Speed - MPH >=70 HB -106-Item 6. - 80 Pace % in Pace Of Vehicles Posted Speed Limit New Speed Limit 36-45 M.P.H. 78 % 105 45 M.P.H. 45 MPH, Accident Rate(Acc/MVM)= 0.61 State Rate= 3.35 Performed By NDS Approved: City Of Huntington Beach Date: Robert Stachelski, Transportation Manager R.T.E. 1651 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA Traffic Engineering Speed Survey # of Lanes Median Bike Lanes Grading Parking Land Use [ ] Two [ ] Three [XI Four [ ] Six Other [ X ] Raised [ ] Painted [ ] Painted Center Line Complete section below to certify a copy of this original survey. [ X ] Yes [ ] No This document is a correct copy of the original in the PW Dept. [ X ] Flat [ ] Sloped [ ] OCFCD Channel [ ] Yes [ X ] No Date Sign Title [ X ) Commercial [ 3 Industrial [ X ] Residential City of Huntington Beach CA Public Works Department HB -107-Item 6. - 81 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 CL 2 38 i;:s 40 a) cr. 42 (/) 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 DATE: 411112017 TIME: 11:05-11:25 Speed ALL Vehicles mph <=10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 I 3 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 7 8 3 6 3 5 3 6 2 2 Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach Location: Garfield Ave Bet. Magnolia St & Brookhurst St Posted Speed: 45 MPH Project #: 17-1073-018 Eastbound Spot Speeds 2 4 6 8 10 Number of Vehicles SPEED PARAMETERS Class Count Range 60th Percentile 86th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # In Pace Percent in Pace % / # Below Pace % /# Above Pace ALL 63 36 - 51 43 mph 48 mph 39-48 43 _ 81% 9% /5 10% / 5 HB -108-Item 6. - 82 Speed mph <.10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 ALL Vehicles DATE: 4111/2017 TIME: 11:05-11:25 1 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 66 57 68 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 3 3 9 8 6 3 3 3 3 3 1 2 1 1 1 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 3 2 38 46 48 50 Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach Location: Garfield Ave Bet. Magnolia St & Brookhurst St Posted Speed: 45 MPH Project #: 17-1073-018 Westbound Spot Speeds 0 2 4 6 8 10 Number of Vehicles SPEED PARAMETERS Class Count Range 60th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace if in Pace Percent in Pace % If Below Pace % If Above Pace ALL 52 33 - 50 40 mph 45 mph 38 - 45 _ 44 85% 3% / 2 12% /6 HB -109-Item 6. - 83 DATE: 411112017 TIME: 11:05-11:25 Speed mph <=10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 ALL Vehicles Speed - MPH 12 9 13 11 4 4 1 1 6 9 6 8 7 2 4 3 3 2 Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach Location: Garfield Ave Bet. Magnolia St & Brookhurst St Posted Speed: 45 MPH Project #: 17-1073-018 Eastbound & Westbound Spot Speeds 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 62 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 0 5 10 15 Number of Vehicles SPEED PARAMETERS Class Count Range 50th Percentile 86th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent In Pace % 1# Below Pace % I # Above Pace ALL 105 33 - 51 41 mph 47 mph 36 - 45 82 78% 1% /2 20% 121 HB -110-Item 6. - 84 Time Surveyed 85th % Pace % In Pace If Of Vehicles Posted Speed Limit New Speed Limit 38-47 MPH. 79 % 105 45 MPH, Accident Rate(Acc/MVM)= 0.56 State Rate= 3.35 Performed By NDS Approved: City Of Huntington Beach Date: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA Traffic Engineering Speed Survey Remarks Several full access commercial driveways along the western half of the street segment. On-street parking along the south side for approximately 250 feet with related parking activity, and a marked pedestrian crosswalk near the eastern half of the segment. These conditions may not be readily apparent. Adjacent street segment to the west posted speed limit of 45 mph. To facilitate the safe and efficient flow of traffic which is reasonable and prudent a 5 mph is applied for a posted speed limit of 45 mph. # of Lanes [ ] Two [ ] Three IX] Four [ ] Six Other Median [ ] Raised [XI Painted [ ] Painted Center Line Bike Lanes IX] Yes [ 1 No Grading [ X ] Flat [ 1 Sloped [ ] OCFCD Channel Parking [ ] Yes [ X ] No Land Use [ XI Commercial [ ] Industrial [ X ] Residential Complete section below to certify a copy of this original survey. This document is a correct copy of the original in the PW Dept. Date Sign Title City of Huntington Beach CA Public Works Department HB -111-Item 6. - 85 Location: Garfield Ave Bet. Brookhurst St & Ward St Posted Speed: 45 MPH Project #: 17-1073-019 Eastbound Spot Speeds 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 3 0_ =1,'M 4 Number of Vehicles 6 0 38 -0 40 a) a) 0_42 Cl) 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 8 DATE: 411112017 TIME: 11:29-11:57 Speed mph <=10 1 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 26 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 ALL Vehicles 2 2 3 2 3 1 1 1 2 1 10 SPEED PARAMETERS Class Count Range 60th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent Pace In % / # Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 52 35- 54 41 mph 48 mph 38 - 47 39 75% 7% 14 18% / 9 HB -112-Item 6. - 86 DATE: 4111/2017 TIME: 11:29-11:57 Speed mph <=10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 31 32 33 34 35 ALL Vehicles 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 1 3 3 7 4 6 4 5 4 3 3 3 1 1 >=70 Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach Location: Garfield Ave Bet. Brookhurst St & Ward St Posted Speed: 45 MPH Project #: 17-1073-019 Westbound Spot Speeds 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 U- 2 38 TS 40 474 (3.) CL 4 2 4 Number of Vehicles 44 46 48 50 52 0 54 56 58 60 62 66 68 70 SPEED PARAMETERS Class Count Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % I # Below Pace % i # Above Pace ALL 53 37- 53 43 mph 48 mph 38 - 47 44 83% 1% / 1 16% / 8 HB -113-Item 6. - 87 10 12 14 16 18 4 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 DATE: 4/1112017 TIME: 11:29-11:57 Speed mph <=10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 ALL Vehicles 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 2 2 1 7 6 16 11 7 8 12 6 7 6 6 4 2 3 Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach Location: Garfield Ave Bet. Brookhurst St & Ward St Posted Speed: 45 MPH Project #: 17-1073-019 Eastbound & Westbound Spot Speeds 0 5 10 15 20 Number of Vehicles SPEED PARAMETERS Class Count Range 60th Percentile 86th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % / 4 Below Pace % / 4 Above Pace ALL 105 35 - 54 43 mph 48 mph 38 - 47 83 79% _ 4% / 5 17% /17 HB -114-Item 6. - 88 Accident Rate(Acc/MVM). 0.86 State Rate= Performed By NDS Approved: City Of Huntington Beech Date: Robert Stachelski, Transportation Manager R.T.E. 1651 2.40 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA Traffic Engineering Speed Survey Street Surveyed ; Between Date Surveyed Time Surveyed 85th % Pace % In Pace II Of Vehicles Posted Speed Limit New Speed Limit GOLDENWEST STREET PCH TO YORKTOWN 4/14/17 9;00 AM to 10;00 AM 52 M.P.H. 43-52 M,P,H, 72 % 161 50 M.P.H. 50 M.P.H. Remarks # of Lanes I Two [ ] Three [ ] Four [ X ] Six Other Median I ] Raised [ X ] Painted [ ] Painted Center Line Bike Lanes [ X ] Yes [ j No Grading [ X ] Flat [ ] Sloped [ ] OCFCD Channel Complete section below to certify a copy of this original survey. This document is a correct copy of the original in the PW Dept. Parking [ ] Yes [ X 1 No Date Sign Title Land Use [ ] Commercial (J Industrial [ X ] Residential I City of Huntington Beach CA Public Works Department HB -115-Item 6. - 89 DATE: 4/14/2017 TIME: 09:00-10:00 Speed mph <=10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 29 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 ALL Vehicles 37 5 38 3 39 3 40 4 41 3 42 3 43 5 44 44 5 5 7 45 7 45 46 46 7 7 7 47 7 47 48 6 49 50 51 62 53 54 65 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 6 6 4 3 2 1 -ci 40 a> CD (I) 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 Ct. 42 8 6 Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach Location: Goldenwest St Bet. Pacific Coast Hwy & Yorktown Ave Posted Speed: 50 MPH Project #: 17-1073-020 Northbound Spot Speeds 10 i 12 1 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 39 32 34 36 T o_ 38 1 2 4 Number of Vehicles SPEED PARAMETERS Class Count Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent Pace in % / # Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 78 37- 54 46 mph 50 mph 42- 51 54 69% 23% 118 8% /6 HB -116-Item 6. - 90 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 2 38 _ V 46 O. 42 CO 44 46 48 50 62 54 DATE: 411412017 TIME: 09:00-10:00 Speed ALL Vehicles mph <.10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 46 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 1 2 2 3 4 6 6 6 7 8 7 7 6 6 5 4 2 Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach Location: Goldenwest St Bet. Pacific Coast Hwy & Yorktown Ave Posted Speed: 50 MPH Project #: 17-1073-020 Southbound Spot Speeds 56 57 1 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 1 4 6 8 10 Number of Vehicles SPEED PARAMETERS class Count Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent In Pace % I # Below Pace % / 4 Above Pace ALL 63 39 - 58 48 mph 53 mph 44 - 53 63 76% 14% /12 10% 18 HB -117-Item 6. - 91 DATE: 4114/2017 TIME: 09:00-10:00 Speed ALL Vehicles mph <=10 11 12 13 14 16 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 26 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 36 40 41 42 43 44 46 46 5 3 4 6 6 6 9 10 13 13 47 47 14 14 48 48 14 14 Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach Location: Goldenwest St Bet. Pacific Coast Hwy & Yorktown Ave Posted Speed: 50 MPH Project #: 17-1073-020 Northbound & Southbound Spot Speeds 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 -0 40 0- 42 Cf) 44 46 49 49 12 12 50 50 12 50 50 12 51 51 10 10 52 9 52 52 9 52 53 53 7 7 54 54 6 6 55 55 2 2 56 1 56 56 1 56 57 58 58 58 58 59 6 0 60 61 62 63 64 55 66 67 68 69 >,-70 5 10 15 Number of Vehicles SPEED PARAMETERS Class Count Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace %I# Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 161 37 - 58 47 mph 52 mph 43 - 52 116 72% 18% /26 10% /16 62 64 66 68 70 HB -118-Item 6. - 92 Accident Rate(Acc/MVM)= 0.40 State Rate= Approved: City Of Huntington Beach Date: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA Traffic Engineering Speed Survey Pace 42-51 MPH, % In Pace 71 Va # Of Vehicles 143 Posted Speed Limit 50 M.P.H. # of Lanes [ ] Two I ] Three I ] Four [ X ] Six Other Median [ ) Raised [XI Painted [ ] Painted Center Line Complete section below to certify a copy of this coma! survey. Bike Lanes [ X ] Yes I ] No This document is a correct copy of the original in the PW Dept. Grading [XI Flat [ X ) Sloped [1 OCFCD Channel Parking [ ) Yes [ X ] No Date Sign Title Land Use [ X ] Commercial [ X ] Industrial [ X ] Residential City of Huntington Beach CA Public Works Department HB -119-Item 6. - 93 DATE: 4/1212017 TIME: 12:15-13:00 ALL Vehicles 1 2 3 4 4 5 6 6 6 7 7 6 6 4 4 1 1 54 56 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 Speed mph <=10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 2 38 -a 40 a) a) o_ 42 44 4 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach Location: Goldenwest St Bet. Yorktown Ave & Ellis Ave Posted Speed: 50 MPH Project #: 17-1073-021 Northbound Spot Speeds 2 4 6 8 Number of Vehicles SPEED PARAMETERS Class Count Range 50th Percentile 86th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % / # Below Pace %/# Above Pace ALL 72 39 - 60 48 mph 52 mph .,. 43- 52 55 76% 9% /7 14% /10 HB -120-Item 6. - 94 Speed mph <=10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 ALL Vehicles 2 3 4 4 4 5 36 37 38 39 46 41 42 Project #: 17-1073-021 Posted Speed: 50 MPH 6 8 2 4 Number of Vehicles 60 62 64 66 68 70 Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach Location: Goldenwest St Bet. Yorktown Ave & Ellis Ave Southbound Spot Speeds 10 _ 12 _ 14 _ 16 _ 18 _ 20 _ 22 _ 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 U- 2 38 "Cs 40 a) O 42 59 60 61 52 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 SPEED PARAMETERS Class Count Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent Pace in % / # Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 71 37 - 55 46 mph 50 mph 41 - 50 49 as% 18% /13 13% /9 BATE: 4/1212017 TIME: 12:15-13:00 HB -121-Item 6. - 95 Location: Goldenwest St Bet. Yorktown Ave & Ellis Ave Posted Speed: 50 MPH Project #: 17-1073-021 Northbound & Southbound Spot Speeds 1 0 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 6 38 -o 40 a) GI 42 44 46 48 50 52 0 5 Number of Vehicles 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 10 DATE: 4112/2017 TIME: 12:15-13:00 Speed mph <=10 ALL Vehicles 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 ›=-70 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 52 63 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 2 3 5 6 9 10 11 10 10 11 11 12 10 6 6 5 1 1 Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach 15 SPEED PARAMETERS Class Count Range 60th Percentile 86th Percentile 10 MPH Pace 9 In Pace Percent Pace in % / 9 Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 143 37 - 60 47 mph _ 51 mph 42 - 51 - 102 71% 14% 121 14% /20 HB -122-Item 6. - 96 MPH 60 59 58 57 56 S S NB SB Street Surveyed Between Date Surveyed rfime Surveye 85th % GOLDENWEST STREET ELLIS AVE TO SLATER AV 4/13/17 10:30 AM to 11:15 AM 52 M.P.H. Accident Rate(Acc/MVM)= 060 State Rate= 2.40 Performed By DS 32 31 Date: 50 7 7 6 5 4 49 48 47 46 45 44 1 43 54 52 51 1 1 1 2 1 2 0 2 iii 2 0 Approved: City Of Huntington Beach 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Robert Stachelski, Transportation Manager 0 R.T.E. 1651 0 0 Remarks It 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 15 14 13 12 Ii 0 # of Lanes [ ] Two (1 Three [ ] Four (XI Six Other Median [ X ] Raised [I Painted [ ] Painted Center Line Complete section below to certify a copy of this original survey. Bike Lanes [ X ] Yes [ ] No This document is a correct copy of the original in the PW Dept. Grading [ X ] Flat [ X ] Sloped I ] OCFCD Channel Parking [ ] Yes [ X ] No Date Sign Title Land Use [I Commercial [ ] Industrial (X 1 Residential City of Huntington Beach CA Public Works Department 30 29 _ 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 7 6 13 5 5 10 Pace 5 5 12 4 10 In Pace 3 5 1 3 a 2 4 6 14 Of Vehicles 0 0 1 # I TOTAL CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 0 0 0 Traffic Engineering Speed Survey 3 Posted Speed Limit 2 New Speed Limit 44 - 53 M.P.H. 83% 121 50 MPH, 50 M. HB -123-Item 6. - 97 Accident Rate(Acc/MVM)= 0,65 State Rate= Performed By NOS Approved: City Of Huntington Beach Date: Robert Stachelski, Transportation Manager R.T.E. 1651 2,40 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA Traffic Engineering Speed Survey Pace 38-47 M.P.H. % In Pace 62 % fi Of Vehicles 103 Posted Speed Limit 45 M.P,H, New Speed Limit 45 M.P.H. # of Lanes [ ] Two [ ] Three [ ] Four [ X ] Six Other Median [ X] Raised [ X ] Painted [ ] Painted Center Line Complete section below to certify a copy of this original survey. Bike Lanes I X] Yes [ ] No This document is a correct copy of the original in the PW Dept. Grading IX ] Flat [ ] Sloped [ ] OCFCD Channel Parking [ X ] Yes [ X ] No Date Sign Title Land Use [ X ] Commercial [ ] Industrial [ X ] Residential City of Huntington Beach CA Public Works Department HB -124-Item 6. - 98 Project #: 17-1073-023 Posted Speed: 46 MPH Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach Location: Goldenwest St Bet. Slater Ave & Heil Ave Northbound Spot Speeds 52 52 53 54 54 66 56 56 58 58 10 12 14 16 18 I 20 22 24 26 28 30 y 32 34 36 38 40 42 -I, 44 46 48 50 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 ALL Vehicles 1 2 1 4 • 3 3 4 4 4 4 1 5 2 2 3 2 2 57 - 4 6 2 Number of Vehicles 62 64 66 68 70 0 69 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 SPEED PARAMETERS Class Count Range 60th Percentile 86th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # In Pace Percent Pace in % / # Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 50 30 - 53 41 mph 47 mph 35 - 44 33 66% a% r 4 26% / 13 DATE: 41712017 TIME: 09:00-09:38 HB -125-Item 6. - 99 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 28 30 32 34 36 3 3 6 5 3 4 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 2 38 "0 40 a) ca. 42 44 4 3 3 1 3 1 45 47 48 49 50 51 52 48 50 52 53 54 55 1 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach Location: Goldenwest St Bet. Slater Ave & Heil Ave Posted Speed: 45 MPH Project #: 17-1073-023 Southbound Spot Speeds 2 Number of Vehicles 6 SPEED PARAMETERS Class Count Range 50th Percentile 86th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent Pace in % / # Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 53 26 - 53 41 mph 48 mph 38 - 47 32 BO% 22% /12 17% 19 46 DATE: 417/2017 TIME: 09:00-09:38 ALL Vehicles 10 12 14 16 113 20 22 24 26 Speed mph <=10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 25 26 HB -126-Item 6. - 100 3 2 6 4 3 6 7 9 9 7 6 6 6 3 6 6 1 32 33 14 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 5 0 >=70 64 65 66 67 68 69 Speed - MPH 10 DATE: 4/712017 TIME: 09:00-09:38 Speed ALL Vehicles mph <=10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 I 1 27 I 1 28 29 30 31 Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach Location: Goldenwest St Bet. Slater Ave & Heil Ave Posted Speed: 45 MPH Project 4: 17-1073-023 Northbound & Southbound Spot Speeds 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 I 48 t 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 Number of Vehicles 52 I 2 53 I 2 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 SPEED PARAMETERS Class Count Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % /4 Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 103 26 • 53 41 mph 47 mph 38 - 47 64 62% 23% 124 15% 115 HB -127-Item 6. - 101 Date Surveyed Time Surveyed 85th % Pace % In Pace # Of Vehicles Posted Speed Limit New Speed Limit 35-44 M.P.H. 54 % 100 45 M,P.11 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA Traffic Engineering Speed Survey Accident Rate(Acc/MVM)= 1.02 State Rate= Approved: City Of Huntington Beach Date: Remarks Several full access commercial driveways, and full access driveways serving a community college with swap meet events on the weekends with heavy pedestrian activity, Adjacent street segments posted 45 mph. Due to these reasons to facilitate the safe and orderly flow of traffic a 5 mph reduction is applied for a posted speed limit of 45 mph. # of Lanes Median Bike Lanes Grading Parking Land Use [ ] Two [ Three [ ] Four [ X ] Six Other [ ] Raised [ X ] Painted [ ] Painted Center Line Complete section below to certify a copy of this original survey. [X] Yes [ J No This document is a correct copy of the original in the PW Dept, [ X ] Flat [ ] Sloped [ ] OCFCD Channel [ ] Yes IX ] No Date Sign Title [ X I Commercial [ 3 Industrial [ X ] Residential City of Huntington Beach CA Public Works Department HB -128-Item 6. - 102 TIME: 14:30-15:00 Posted Speed: 45 MPH Project #: 17-1073-024 Speed mph ALL Vehicles 28 27 1 1 28 29 30 34 2 52 1 54 1 56 58 1 60 52 84 6 68 .1 1 4 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 I 46 48 50 44 ›,--70 70 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 2 1 2 2 1 5 3 3 2 1 2 2 1 3 Northbound Spot Speeds <=10 11 12 13 14 16 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 28 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach DATE: 41312017 Location: Goldenwest St Bet. Heil Ave & McFadden Ave 0 2 6 Number of Vehicles SPEED PARAMETERS Class Count Range 60th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent Pace in % / # Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 50 27 - 59 40 mph 48 mph 35 - 44 26 52% 18% / 9 30% /15 HB -129-Item 6. - 103 DATE: 4/312017 TIME: 14:30-15:00 Speed ALL Vehicles mph 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2 0 21 22 23 I 1 24 25 26 27 36 ELI 38 40 a) a) ca, 42 2 3 1 2 1 4 4 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 10 12 14 16 19 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 51 52 1 52 52 1 52 53 2 53 2 54 54 54 54 55 56 56 56 56 57 58 58 2 58 58 2 59 60 60 60 60 61 62 62 62 62 63 64 64 64 64 65 66 66 66 66 67 68 68 68 68 69 70 >=70 70 >=70 Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach Location: Goldenwest St Bet. Heil Ave & McFadden Ave Posted Speed: 45 MPH Project #: 17-1073-024 Southbound Spot Speeds 0 2 4 6 8 Number of Vehicles SPEED PARAMETERS Class Count Range 60th Percentile 86th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace %1# Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 50 23 - 58 43 mph 49 mph 36 - 45 29 58% 14% /7 28% /14 HB -130-Item 6. - 104 Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach Location: Goldenwest St Bet. Heil Ave & McFadden Ave Posted Speed: 45 MPH Project #: 17-1073-024 Northbound & Southbound Spot Speeds 30 32 34 36 0_ 38 o 40 0_ 42 CO 44 10 12 14 16 1 20 22 24 26 28 46 50 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 0 Number of Vehicles 5 DATE: 4/312017 TIME: 14:30-15:00 Speed mph ALL Vehicles 1 1 >=70 <=10 11 12 13 14 15 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 2 2 2 3 2 7 6 6 3 3 3 6 6 9 7 7 28 3 3 46 47 4 3 48 49 3 1 60 51 2 2 52 53 54 55 56 57 2 1 58 69 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 10 SPEED PARAMETERS Class Count Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % I # Below Pace % (4 Above Pace ALL 100 23 - 59 42 mph 46 mph 36 - 44 54 54% 14% /14 32% /32 HB -131-Item 6. - 105 Performed By NDS Time Surveyed 85th % Pace % In Pace 8 Of Vehicles Posted Speed Limit New Speed Limit 11:30 AM to 12;41 PM 48 M.P.H. 37-46 M,P,H, 71 % 103 45 MPH. Street Surveyed GOLDENWEST STREET Between MCFADDEN AVE TO BOLSA AVE Date Surveyed 3/31/17 Accident Rate(Acc/MVM). 0,46 State Rate 2.40 Approved: City Of Iltintington Beach Date: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA Traffic Engineering Speed Survey Remarks Numerous full access commercial driveways along the entire street segment. Segment is shared with the City of Westminster which has a posted speed limit of 45 mph based on an engineering and traffic survey. Due to these reasons a posting of 45 mph is reasonable and prudent to facilitate the orderly flow of traffic. # of Lanes [ ] Two [ I Three [ ] Four [ X ] Six Other Median [ ] Raised IX ] Painted [ ] Painted Center Line Bike Lanes [ ] Yes [ X ] No Complete section below to certify a copy of this original survey. This document is a correct copy of the original in the PW Dept. Grading [ X ] Flat [ ] Sloped [ ] OCFCD Channel Parking [ X ] Yes II No Date Sign Title Land Use [ X Commercial [ ] Industrial [ X ] Residential City of Huntington Beach CA Public Works Department HB -132-Item 6. - 106 DATE: 313112017 TIME: 11:30-12:41 Location: Goidenwest St Bet. McFadden Ave & Boisa Ave Posted Speed: 45 MPH Project #: 17-1073-025 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 Speed mph <=10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 ALL Vehicles 30 3 34 36 CL 38 D 40 0_ 42 (/) 44 4 2 Number of Vehicles 64 66 88 70 Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach Northbound Spot Speeds 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 SPEED PARAMETERS Count Range 60th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # In Pace Percent in Pace %/# Below Pace % /# Above Pace ALL 1 30 - 53 42 mph 47 mph 37 - 46 36 71% 16% /8 1 1 2 1 2 4 2 4 3 5 2 4 4 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 HB -133-Item 6. - 107 36 2 3 33 34 36 37 34 36 41 3 3 1 2 3 3 38 39 40 42 43 44 36 '1D 40 13) a_ 42 CO 44 56 58 BO 62 64 66 68 70 46 48 50 52 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 7 4 6 7 2 1 2 54 6 8 0 2 4 Number of Vehicles Southbound Spot Speeds ALL Vehicles 10 12 1 14 16 16 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 SPEED PARAMETERS Class Count Range 60th Percentile I 86th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % / # Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 52 30 - 62 45 mph J 48 mph _ 39 - 48 37 71% 19% /10 10% /5 Speed mph <=10 11 12 13 14 15 6 17 16 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 29 29 30 31 32 Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach DATE: 3131/2017 Location: Goldenwest St Bet. McFadden Ave & Balsa Ave TIME: 11:30-12:41 Posted Speed: 45 MPH Project #: 17-1073-025 HB -134-Item 6. - 108 DATE: 3131/2017 TIME: 11:30-12:41 Speed ALL VehIclos mph <,10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 I 2 31 I 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 55 66 2 2 2 4 5 5 5 6 7 9 12 7 6 8 2 4 2 2 1 Speed - MPH 66 69 >=70 Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach Location: GoIdenwest St Bet. McFadden Ave & Boisa Ave Posted Speed: 45 MPH Project #: 17-1073-025 Northbound & Southbound Spot Speeds 10 12 14 16 18 _ 20 22 24 26 _I 28 32 34 36 r 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 0 5 10 15 Number of Vehicles SPEED PARAMETERS Class Count Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # In Pace Percent in Pace % I# Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 103 30 - 53 44 mph 46 mph 39 - 48 69 67% 22% /23 11% /11 HB -135-Item 6. - 109 Pace 33-42 M.P.H. % In Pace 84 if Of Vehicles 129 Posted Speed Limit 40 M.P.H. Accident Rate(Acc/MVM). 0.42 State Rate — 3,35 Performed By NDS Approved: City Of Huntington Beach Date: Street Surveyed Between Date Surveyed Time Surveyed 85th % GOTHARD STREET MAN ST TO GARFTELD AVE 4/12/17 3:15 PM to 4:00 PM 42 MPH, CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA Traffic Engineering Speed Survey # of Lanes [ 1 Two [1 Three [ X ] Four 1 1 Six Other Median [ ] Raised [ X] Painted [ ] Painted Center Line Bike Lanes [ X I Yes [ I No Complete section below to certify a copy of this original survey. This document is a correct copy of the original in the PW Dept Grading [ X ] Flat [1 Sloped [ OCFCD Channel Parking [1 Yes [XI No Date Sign Title Land Use [1 Commercial [ X Industrial X] Residential City of Huntington Beach CA Public Works Department HB -136-Item 6. - 110 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 C- 38 13 40 a) CL 42 44 46 48 DATE: 4/12/2017 TIME: 15:15-16:00 Speed mph ALL Vehicles 69 >=70 45 46 47 48 49 50 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 39 40 41 42 43 44 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 35 36 37 36 31 32 33 34 15 16 17 18 11 12 13 14 Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach Location: Gothard St Bet. Main St & Garfield Ave Posted Speed: 40 MPH Posted Speed: 40 MPH Project #: 17-1073-026 Project #: 17-1073-026 Northbound Spot Speeds 50 52 64 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 2 4 6 8 10 Number of Vehicles Number of Vehicles SPEED PARAMETERS Class Count Range 60th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent Pace in % / # Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 66 32 - 43 36 mph 41 mph 32 - 41 59 89% 0% /0 11% /7 HB -137-Item 6. - 111 Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach DATE: 4/1212017 Location: Gothard St Bet. Main St & Garfield Ave TIME: 15:15-16:00 Posted Speed: 40 MPH Project #: 17-1073-026 Speed mph ALL Vehicles <=10 10 Southbound Spot Speeds 19 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 J 28 30 32 34 36 38 1:3 40 42 44 46 2 4 Number of Vehicles 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 48 50 52 54 58 62 64 66 68 70 0 8 SPEED PARAMETERS Class Count Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 ly1P1-1 Pace # in Pace Percent Pace in % / # Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 63 33 - 47 39 mph 43 mph 34 - 43 52 83% 4% 13 13% 18 HB -138-Item 6. - 112 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 2 38 'ID 40 ci 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 j 68 70 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach DATE: 4112/2017 TIME: 15:15-16:00 Location: Gothard St Bet. Main St & Garfield Ave Posted Speed: 40 MPH Project #: 17-1073-026 Northbound & Southbound Spot Speeds 5 10 15 Number of Vehicles SPEED PARAMETERS Class Count Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % / # Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 129 32-47 38 mph 42 mph 33 - 42 108 84% 4% /6 12% /15 HB -139-Item 6. - 113 Pace 34-43 M.P.H. % In Pace 95 % ft Of Vehicles 136 Posted Speed Limit 40 M.P.H. Accident Rate(Acc/MVM)= 0.31 State Rate= 3.35 Performed By NOS Approved: City Of Huntington Beach Date: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA Traffic Engineering Speed Survey Remarks Several full access commercial driveways along the southern section of the segment resulting in cross traffic that may not be readily apparent. Design speed visibility limitations exist and adjacent street segments with posted speed limit of 40 mph. Based on these conditions a posted speed limit of 40 mph would be appropriate to facilitate the safe and orderly flow of traffic. # of Lanes Two [ 1 Three [ X ] Four [I Six Other Median [ X ] Raised 1X ] Painted [ ] Painted Center Line Bike Lanes [ X ] Yes [1 No !Complete section below to certify a copy of this original survey. This document is a correct copy of the original in the RN Dept. Grading IX ] Flat [ X ] Sloped [ ] OCFCD Channel Parking [ J Yes [ X ] No Date Sign Title Land Use El Commercial [ X ] Industrial [ X ] Residential City of Huntington Beach CA Public Works Department HB -140-Item 6. - 114 Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach DATE: 411212017 TIME: 13:10-14:00 Location: Gothard St Bet. Garfield Ave & Ellis Ave Posted Speed: 40 MPH Project #: 17-1073-027 Northbound Spot Speeds 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 n 38 -0 40 a) a) CI 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 2 4 6 Number of Vehicles SPEED PARAMETERS Class Count Range 60th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent Pace in % / # Below Pace `A / # Above Pace ALL 71 31 - 53 40 mph 44 mph _ 35 - 44 53 75% 12% 19 13% /9 0 HB -141-Item 6. - 115 6 8 2 4 Number of Vehicles 64 66 68 70 0 Speed mph ALL Vehicles 10 <=10 11 12 12 13 14 _I 14 15 16 16 17 18 18 19 20 20 21 22 22 23 24 _ 24 26 25 26 27 28 28 29 30 30 31 Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach DATE: 411212017 TIME: 13:10-14:00 Location: Gothard St Bet. Garfield Ave & Ellis Ave Posted Speed: 40 MPH Project #: 17-1073-027 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 34 o_ 2 38 sa. 42 •3 40 a) a) CO Southbound Spot Speeds 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 SPEED PARAMETERS Class Count Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % / # Below Pace % /# Above Pace ALL 65 29 - 49 38 mph 45 mph 34 - 43 44 68% 15% 110 17% /11 HB -142-Item 6. - 116 DATE: 4/12/2017 TIME: 13:10-14:00 Speed mph 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 46 41 42 43 44 ALL Vehicles 12 1 0 : • : 10 .• 1 0 10 .10 Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach Location: Gothard St Bet. Garfield Ave & Ellis Ave Posted Speed: 40 MPH Project #: 17-1073-027 Northbound & Southbound Spot Speeds 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 Speed - MPH 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 3 45 46 46 46 46 47 48 49 50 48 50 51 52 52 52 52 53 54 54 54 54 55 56 56 56 56 57 58 58 58 58 59 BO 60 BO 60 61 62 62 62 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 5 10 15 Number of Vehicles SPEED PARAMETERS Class Count Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % / # Below Pace % I # Above Pace ALL 136 29 - 53 39 mph 44 mph 34 - 43 _ 95 70% 11% /16 19% /25 64 66 68 70 0 HB -143-Item 6. - 117 42 Posted Speed Limit 40 MPH. New Speed Limit 10 40 MPH. 40 41 61 41 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA Traffic Engineering Speed Survey Between ELLIS AVE TO SLATER AVE Date Surveyed 6/12/17 Time Surveyed 9:05 AM to 9:55 AM 85th % 46 MPH. Pace 39 - 48 M.P.H. 41 811% In Pace 81% 7 9 litt Of Vehicles 43 41 39 38 Accident Rate(Acc/MVM). 0.43 State Rate 3.35 37 Performed By DS Approved: City Of Huntington Beach Date: Robert Stachelski, Transportation Manager R.T.E. 1651 Remarks Several commercial driveways exist along this segment in an industrial area with a considerable amount of crossing traffic. The segment also fronts an active park with two access locations for parking, and a fire station 0 with uncontrolled access and emergency response 0 situations. These conditions may not be readily ] 0 apparent. The adjacent street segments are posted 40 mph based on an engineering survey. The speed limit reduction posting of 40 mph would be reasonable and prudent to facilitate the orderly flow of traffic.. # of Lanes Median Bike Lanes Grading Parking [ ] Two [ ] Three [XI Four [ ] Six Other [ I Raised [ X ] Painted [ I Painted Center Line [XI Yes [ I No [ X ] Flat [ ] Sloped [ ] OCFCD Channel [ ] Yes [ X ] No IComplete section below to certify a copy of this original survey. This document is a correct copy of the original in the PW Dept Date Sign Title City of Huntington Beach CA Public Works Department Land Use [ X ] Commercial [ X ] Industrial [ ] Residential HB -144-Item 6. - 118 Date Surveyed Time Surveyed 85th % Pace % In Pace Of Vehicles Posted Speed Limit New Speed Limit 31-40 M.P.H. 74 1A) 101 40 M.P.H. Accident Rate(Acc/MVM). 0.82 State Rate= 3.35 Performed By NOS Approved: City Of Huntington Beach Date: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA Traffic Engineering Speed Survey Remarks # of Lanes [ ] Two [ ] Three [ X ] Four [ ] Six Other Median [ ] Raised [ X ] Painted [ ] Painted Center Line Bike Lanes [ X ] Yes [ ] No Grading [ X I Flat [ ] Sloped [ ] OCFCD Channel Parking [ ] Yes [ X ] No Land Use IX] Commercial [ X ] Industrial [ ] Residential Complete section below to certify a copy of this original survey. This document is a correct copy of the original in the PW Dept. Date Sign Title City of Huntington Beach CA Public Works Department HB -145-Item 6. - 119 26 28 30 6 8 2 4 Number of Vehicles Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach Location: Gothard St Bet. Slater Ave & Warner Ave Posted Speed: 40 MPH Project #: 17-1073-029 Northbound Spot Speeds 10 _1 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 SPEED PARAMETERS Class Count Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % /8 Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 50 25 - 43 36 mph 40 mph 32 - 41 43 86% 12% / 6 2% /1 0 DATE: 41712017 TIME: 10:37-11:20 Speed mph <-,10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 Si 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 ALL Vehicles HB -146-Item 6. - 120 6 8 2 4 Number of Vehicles ALL Vehicles 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 0_ 2 38 -0 40 a) SPEED PARAMETERS Class Count Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent Pace in % / # Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 51 26 - 46 35 mph 42 rnph 29 - 38 35 69% 5% / 3 26% / 13 Speed mph <=10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 69 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 79 0 Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach DATE: 41712017 TIME: 10:37-11:20 Location: Gothard St Bet. Slater Ave & Warner Ave Posted Speed: 40 MPH Project #: 17-1073-029 Southbound Spot Speeds HB -147-Item 6. - 121 DATE: 4/7/2017 TIME: 10:37-11:20 Speed mph <=10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 ALL Vehicles 10 Speed - MPH Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach Location: Gothard St Bel Slater Ave & Warner Ave Posted Speed: 40 MPH Project #: 17-1073-029 Northbound & Southbound Spot Speeds 30 32 34 36 38 j 40 42 44 k 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 45 46 46 46 46 47 48 48 48 48 49 50 50 50 50 51 52 52 52 52 53 54 54 54 54 55 56 56 56 56 57 58 58 58 58 59 60 60 60 60 61 62 62 62 62 63 64 64 64 64 65 66 66 66 66 67 68 68 68 68 69 70 >,-"70 70 >,-"70 0 5 10 15 Number of Vehicles SPEED PARAMETERS Class Count Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % / # Below Pace % /# Above Pace ALL 101 25 - 46 36 mph 40 mph 31 - 40 74 73% 13% /14 13% /13 HB -148-Item 6. - 122 Performed By NDS Pace 36-45 M.P.H. % In Pace 57 % 4 Of Vehicles 103 Posted Speed Limit 40 M.P.H. Accident Rate(Acc/MVM)= 0.80 State Rate= 3.35 Approved: City Of Huntington Beach Date: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA Traffic Engineering Speed Survey Remarks Several commercial access driveways exist resulting in considerable conflicting traffic which may not be readily apparent. Adjacent street segments are posted 40 mph based on an engineering survey. A 5 mph reduction for this street segment for a posted speed limit of 40 mph would facilitate the safe and orderly flow of traffic. # of Lanes Median Bike Lanes Grading Parking Land Use [ ] Two [ I Three [ X I Four [ I Six Other [ ] Raised [ X ] Painted [] Painted Center Line Complete section below to certify a copy of this original survey. [ X ] Yes [ No This document is a correct copy of the original in the PW Dept. [XI Flat [ I Sloped [ I OCFCD Channel [ ] Yes [ X ] No Date Sign Title [ X ] Commercial [ X ] Industrial [ X I Residential City of Huntington Beach CA Public Works Department HB -149-Item 6. - 123 Posted Speed: 40 MPH Project #: 17-1073-030 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 1 Speed mph <=10 1 2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ALL Vehicles 10 30 32 1 2 1 29 30 31 32 4 6 3 6 2 40 41 42 43 44 -0 40 a) o_ 42 C./) 44 6 8 0 2 4 Number of Vehicles DATE: 417/2017 TIME: 11:31-12:07 36 36 37 2 2 a. 2 38 2 3 38 39 SPEED PARAMETERS Class Count Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % / # Below Pace % I # Above Pace ALL 50 28-52 41 mph 46 mph 37-46 ... 33 66% 20% /10 14%/i Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach Location: Gothard St Bet. Warner Ave & Heil Ave Northbound Spot Speeds HB -150-Item 6. - 124 DATE: 4/712017 TIME: 11:31-12:07 Speed I ALL Vehicles mph ‹.1 0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 1 3 1 1 4 3 35 36 36 4 4 2 37 2 37 38 3 38 3 39 3 39 3 40 4 41 42 4 43 10 J 12 14 16 18 _ 20 _I 22 24 26 28 30 p 32 34 36 38 -a 40 a) 0_ 42 Southbound Spot Speeds Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach Location: Gothard St Bet. Warner Ave & Heil Ave Posted Speed: 40 MPH Project #: 17-1073-030 C/) 44 3 44 44 3 44 3 45 3 45 46 46 3 46 3 46 47 2 47 2 48 2 48 48 2 48 49 2 49 2 60 1 50 60 1 50 51 1 51 1 62 52 62 52 53 54 54 _ 54 54 _ 55 56 56 56 56 57 58 58 58 58 59 60 60 60 60 61 62 62 63 64 64 65 66 66 67 68 68 69 >=70 70 0 2 4 6 Number of Vehicles SPEED PARAMETERS Class Count Range 50th Percentile 86th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % I 4 Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 53 27 - 51 39 mph 47 mph 33 - 42 28 53% 13% /7 34% /18 HB -151-Item 6. - 125 DATE: 41712017 TlIVIE: 11:31-12:07 Speed mph <=10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 Speed - MPH ALL Vehicles 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 2 3 2 2 2 6 4 6 4 5 6 8 6 7 6 5 6 6 3 4 4 2 1 1 Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach 10 Location: Gothard St Bet. Warner Ave & Heil Ave Posted Speed: 40 MPH Project #: 17-1073-030 Northbound & Southbound Spot Speeds 0 Number of Vehicles SPEED PARAMETERS Class Count Range 60th Percentile 86th Percentile 10 MPH pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % / # Below Pace %1# Above Pace ALL 103 27 - 52 40 mph 46 mph 36 - 45 69 67% 22% 123 21% /21 HB -152-Item 6. - 126 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA Traffic Engineering Speed Survey Time Surveyed 85th % Pace % In Pace # Of Vehicles Posted Speed Limit New Speed Limit Accident Rate(Acc/MVM)= 0,36 37-46 M.P.H. 72 % 109 40 MPH, Remarks High driveway density on the east side of the street segment within an industrial/commercial area resulting in significant crossing traffic, and numerous commercial and residential full access driveways along the northern portion of the segment which may not be readily apparent. Due to these reasons the posted speed limit of 40 mph would facilitate the safe and orderly flow of traffic. # of Lanes [ ] Two [ ] Three [ X ] Four [ ] Six Other Median [ ] Raised [ X] Painted [ I Painted Center Line Bike Lanes [ X ] Yes [ 1 No Grading [ X ] Flat [ ] Sloped [ 1 OCFCD Channel Parking [ X ] Yes [ ] No Land Use [ X ] Commercial [ X Industrial [ X 3 Residential City of Huntington Beach CA Public Works Department Complete section below to certify a copy of this original survey. This document is a correct copy of the original in the PW Dept. Date Sign Title HB -153-Item 6. - 127 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 $0 2 $2 3 $4 3 38 3 6 8 8 36 36 37 38 39 DATE: 4/312017 TIME: 11:15-11:45 ALL Vehicles 10 Speed mph <=1 0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 26 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 6 8 10 2 4 Number of Vehicles 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 0 61 52 63 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 SPEED PARAMETERS Class Count Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % /# Below Pace Tra# Above Pace ALL 58 31 - 53 39 mph 45 mph 36 - 45 42 72% 13% /8 14% / 8 Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach Location: Gothard St Bet. Heil Ave & Center Ave Posted Speed: 40 MPH Project #: 17-1073-031 Northbound Spot Speeds HB -154-Item 6. - 128 DATE: 4/3/2017 TIME: 11:15-11:45 Speed mph <=10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 37 38 ALL Vehicles 2 1 1 2 3 2 3 10 12 14 16 18 _ 20 22 1, 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 2 38 3 5 39 8 4 Number of Vehicles 40 41 42 43 44 45 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 -CI 40 ca 0_42 (0 44 46 48 50 52 54 1 2 3 2 1 2 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 0 SPEED PARAMETERS Class Count Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # In Pace Percent In Pace % i # Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 51 31 - 49 41 mph 46 mph 36 - 45 37 73% 11% /8 16% /8 4 4 5 8 Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach Location: Gothard St Bet. Hell Ave & Center Ave Posted Speed: 40 MPH Project #: 17-1073-031 Southbound Spot Speeds HB -155-Item 6. - 129 Speed - MPH DATE: 41312017 TIME: 11:15-11:45 Speed mph <=10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 28 27 28 29 ALL Vehicles 30 31 4 32 3 33 1 34 35 1 36 6 37 8 38 11 39 13 40 8 41 8 42 6 43 11 44 2 46 48 50 62 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 69 70 45 46 47 48 49 56 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 6 6 6 1 2 Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach Location: Gothard St Bet. Heil Ave & Center Ave Posted Speed: 40 MPH Project #: 17-1073-031 Northbound & Southbound Spot Speeds 42 44 0 5 10 15 Number of Vehicles SPEED PARAMETERS Class Count Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pate # in Pace Percent in Pace % / # Below Pace % 1U Above Pace ALL 109 31 - 53 40 mph 45 mph - 36 - 45 79 72% 12% /14 15% /16 HB -156-Item 6. - 130 # of Lanes [ ] Two [ ] Three Median Bike Lanes [ X ] Yes [I No [ X ] Four [ 1 Six Other [ ] Raised [ X ] Painted [ ] Painted Center Line CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA Traffic Engineering Speed Survey 31-40 M.P.H. 81% ft Of Vehicles 104 Posted Speed Limit 40 M.P.H. New Speed Limit 40 M.P.H. Accident Rate(Acc/MUM). 0.2 State Rate= Performed By NDS Approved: City Of Huntington Beach Date: Robert Stachelski, Transportation Manager 101 3.35 Grading [ X ] Flat [ ] Sloped [ ] OCFCD Channel Parking [ X ] Yes [] No Land Use [ X 1 Commercial [ ] Industrial [] Residential Complete section below to certify a copy of this original survey. This document is a correct copy of the original in the PW Dept. )/%% 111:LrpLirttrrn1HL HB -157-Item 6. - 131 ALL Vehicles 1 1 2 2 6 7 1 3 6 3 7 2 3 3 1 1 Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach DATE: 413/2017 DATE: 413/2017 Location: Gothard St Bet. Center Ave & McFadden Ave Location: Gothard St Bet. Center Ave & McFadden Ave TIME: 12:00-12:35 Posted Speed: 40 MPH Project #: 17-1073-032 TIME: 12:00-12:35 Posted Speed: 40 MPH Project #: 17-1073-032 Northbound Spot Speeds Speed mph 10 <=10 10 <=10 11 11 12 12 12 12 13 14 16 18 2 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 2 38 -a 40 a) eL 42 44 ,== 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 46 41 42 43 44 45 46 46 46 46 47 48 48 48 48 49 50 50 50 50 51 52 52 52 52 53 54 54 54 54 55 56 56 56 56 57 58 58 58 58 59 60 SO 60 SO 61 62 62 62 62 53 64 65 66 67 68 69 >,70 2 4 8 Number of Vehicles SPEED PARAMETERS Class Count Range 60th Percentile 86th Percentile '10 MPH Pace 4 In Pace Percent in Pace % /# Below Pace % I# Above Pace ALL 53 26 - 55 35 mph 40 mph 31 - 40 41 77% 11% 16 12% 16 64 66 68 70 HB -158-Item 6. - 132 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 62 64 66 68 70 _ 0 8 10 4 Number of Vehicles 01 DATE: 41312017 TIME: 12:00-12:35 Speed mph <=10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ALL Vehicles 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 1 1 1 2 6 3 4 6 8 7 4 4 3 1 1 Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach Location: Gotham! St Bet. Center Ave & McFadden Ave Posted Speed: 40 MPH Project #: 17-1073-032 Southbound Spot Speeds 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 38 MI 40 cU 0.42 44 46 48 50 52 56 58 60 SPEED PARAMETERS Class Count Range 50th Percentile 86th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % I # Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 51 28 - 43 36 mph 39 mph 32 - 41 44 86% 9% / 5 4% /2 HB -159-Item 6. - 133 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 30 32 34 36 38 46 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach Location: Gothard St Bet. Center Ave & McFadden Ave Posted Speed: 40 MPH Project #: 17-1073-032 Northbound & Southbound Spot Speeds Speed - MPH 15 10 DATE: 41312017 TIME: 12:00-12:35 Speed mph <=10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ALL Vehicles 1 28 2 29 3 30 3 31 31 7 7 32 32 12 12 33 33 4 4 34 34 7 7 35 10 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 11 14 6 9 4 6 1 2 44 44 1 1 46 46 47 48 49 50 51 62 63 54 55 55 1 1 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 64 66 68 70 0 5 Number of Vehicles SPEED PARAMETERS Class Count Range 50th Percentile 86th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % .1# Below Pace % I # Above Pace ALL 104 26 - 55 36 mph 39 mph 31 - 40 84 81% 8% /9 11% /11 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 HB -160-Item 6. - 134 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA Traffic Engineering Speed Survey Pace 33-42 my,a. % In Pace 94 % ri Of Vehicles 110 Posted Speed Limit 40 M.P.H. New Speed Limit 40 MPH, Accident Rate(AccIMVM)= 0.28 State Rate= Performed By NDS Approved: City Of Huntington Beach Date: Robert Stachelski, Transportation Manager R.T.E. 1651 3.35 # of Lanes [ X] Two [ ] Three [ ] Four [ ] Six Other Median [ ] Raised [ X ] Painted [ ] Painted Center Line Bike Lanes [XI Yes [I No Grading [ X ] Flat [ X ] Sloped [ ] OCFCD Channel Parking [ X ] Yes 1] No Land Use [ ] Commercial [I Industrial [ X ] Residential Complete section below to certify a copy of this original survey. This document is a correct copy of the original in the PW Dept. Date Sign Title City of Huntington Beach CA Public Works Department HB -161-Item 6. - 135 Spot Speed Study Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach City of Huntington Beach Location: Graham St Bet. Slater Ave Si Warner Ave DATE: 41512017 Location: Graham St Bet. Slater Ave Si Warner Ave DATE: 41512017 Project #: 17-1073-033 TIME: 12:00-13:00 Posted Speed: 40 MPH Project #: 17-1073-033 Posted Speed: 40 MPH TIME: 12:00-13:00 Northbound Spot Speeds ALL Vehicles 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 Speed mph < = 1 0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 53 64 65 68 67 68 69 30 32 34 36 2 38 -0 40 CD CI> O. 42 (I) 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 1 1 2 2 6 6 6 7 6 6 7 3 2 70 0 2 4 6 8 Number of Vehicles SPEED PARAMETERS Class Count Range 60th Percentile 86th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % / # Below Pace % I # Above Pace ALL 55 29 - 44 37 mph 40 mph 32 - 41 49 89% 3% /2 8% 14 HB -162-Item 6. - 136 Speed mph <=10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 ALL Vehicles 1 1 1 30 31 32 6 8 0 2 4 Number of Vehicles DATE: 41512017 TIME: 12:00-13:00 SPEED PARAMETERS Class Count Range 50th Percentile 65th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent Pace In % / # Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 55 30 - 46 38 mph 42 mph 34 - 43 46 84% 9% /5 8% /4 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 28 26 30 32 34 36 o_ 2 38 -a 40 a) Cr_ 42 44 46 48 50 62 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach Location: Graham St Bet. Slater Ave & Warner Ave Posted Speed: 40 MPH Project #: 17-1073-033 Southbound Spot Speeds HB -163-Item 6. - 137 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 Speed mph <=10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 ALL Vehicles 32 34 2 3 4 9 32 33 34 Project #: 17-1073-033 Posted Speed: 40 MPH Northbound & Southbound Spot Speeds 3 43 44 4 4 45 46 44 46 10 16 5 Number of Vehicles 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 SPEED PARAMETERS Class Count Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % 1 # Below Pace Vol # Above Pace ALL 110 29 - 46 38 mph 41 mph 33 - 42 94 85% 6% / 7 9% / 9 Location: Graham St Bet. Slater Ave & Warner Ave DATE: 4/512017 TIME: 12:00-13:00 9 11 12 38 -0 40 11 a) a a) la 42 35 36 13 11 6 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 HB -164-Item 6. - 138 Pace 31-40 % In Pace 82 % /I Of Vehicles 112 Posted Speed Limit 35 MPH, !: Accident Rate(Acc/MVM)= 0.55 State Rate--, Approved: City Of Huntington Beach Date: # of Lanes [ X ] Two [ ] Three [ ] Four [ 1 Six Other Median Raised [ 1 Painted [ X 1 Painted Center Line Bike Lanes [] Yes [ X ] No CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA • Traffic Engineering Speed Survey Remarks The eastside of this street segment is unimproved with on-street parking, frequent changes in roadway travel width, with an adjacent golf coarse on the east side and park on the west side. A section of unimproved area and roadway narrowing on the west side with a intersecting residential cross street. These conditions may not be readily apparent requiring a posted speed limit of 35 mph to facilitate the safe and orderly flow of traffic thru the street segment. Complete section below to certify a copy of this original survey.1 This document is a correct copy of the original in the PW Dept. Grading [ X ] Fiat [ ] Sloped [ ] OCFCD Channel Parking [ X 1 Yes [] No Land Use [ ] Commercial [ ] Industrial [ X] Residential Date Sign Title City of Huntington Beach CA Public Works Department HB -165-Item 6. - 139 Speed mph i 36 0- 38 1 -17.3 40 iu (b EI. 42 (/) 44 46 48 50 52 54 10 12 14 d 16 j 18 _ 20 _ 22 j 24 j 26 28 30 32 34 6 8 2 4 Number of Vehicles 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 0 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 SPEED PARAMETERS ' Class Count Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent Pace in % / # Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 57 28 - 49 36 mph 41 mph 30 - 39 43 75% 5% 13 20% / 11 Spot Speed Study Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach City of Huntington Beach Location: Graham St Bet. Warner Ave & Heil Ave DATE: 413/2017 DATE: 413/2017 Location: Graham St Bet. Warner Ave & Heil Ave TIME: 14:30-15:00 Posted Speed: 35 MPH TIME: 14:30-15:00 Posted Speed: 35 MPH Project #: 17-1073-034 Project #: 17-1073-034 Northbound Spot Speeds <=10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 HB -166-Item 6. - 140 Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach DATE: 4/3/2017 Location: Graham St Bet. Warner Ave & Heil Ave TIME: 14:30-15:00 Posted Speed: 35 MPH Project #: 17-1073-034 Southbound Spot Speeds Speed mph ALL Vehicles 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 <=10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 _69 >=70 CO = a. 26 28 30 -CS 40 Ct. 42 46 48 50 52 54 32 34 44 2 4 6 8 Number of Vehicles SPEED PARAMETERS Class Count Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % 1# Below Pace %1# Above Pace ALL 55 f 28 - 52 35 mph 42 mph 31 - 40 39 71% 9% 1 5 20% /11 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 0 HB -167-Item 6. - 141 46 48 50 52 54 DATE: 4/312017 TIME: 14:30-15:00 Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach Location: Graham St Bet. Warner Ave & Heil Ave Posted Speed: 35 MPH Project #: 17-1073-034 Northbound & Southbound Spot Speeds 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 H 40 42 44 56 58 60 62 66 68 70 0 5 10 15 Number of Vehicles SPEED PARAMETERS Class Count Range 60th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % I # Below Pace % (# Above Pace ALL 112 28 • 52 36 mph 41 mph 31 - 40 82 73% 8% /10 18% /20 Speed - MPH HB -168-Item 6. - 142 Street Surveyed Between Date Surveyed Time Surveyed S5th % Pace % In Pace ft Of Vehicles Posted Speed Limit New Speed Limit 33-42 M.P.H. SI % 116 40 MPH, 40 M.P.H. Accident Rate(Acc/MVM)= 0.00 State Rate= Performed By NDS Approved: City Of Huntington Beach Date: Robert Stachelski, Transportation Manager R.T.E. 1651 3,35 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA Traffic Engineering Speed Survey Complete section below to certify a copy of This original survey. [ ] No This document is a correct copy of the original in the PW Dept. [ ] Sloped [ ] OCPCD Channel Remarks # of Lanes [X] Two [ ] Three [ X I Four [ 1 Six Other Median [ j Raised [ X ] Painted [ 1 Painted Center Line Bike Lanes [ X ] Yes Grading [ X ] Flat Parking [ } Yes X] No Date Sign Title Land Use [1 Commercial I ] Industrial [XJ Residential City of Huntington Beach CA Public Works Department HB -169-Item 6. - 143 DATE: 4/3/2017 TIME: 13:30-14:15 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 10 12 Speed mph <=10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 I ii. CO 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 44 2 38 1 -0 40 (1) 0..) 42 Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach Location: Graham St Bet. Heil Ave & Edinger Ave Posted Speed: 40 MPH Project #: 17-1073-035 Northbound Spot Speeds 0 2 4 Number of Vehicles SPEED PARAMETERS Class Count Range 50th Percentile 86th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % /# Below Pace % !# Above Pace ALL 56 26 - 48 35 mph 40 mph 30 - 39 37 66% 16% /9 18% /10 HB -170-Item 6. - 144 Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach DATE: 41312017 TIME: 13:30-14:15 Location: Graham St Bet, Heil Ave & Edinger Ave Posted Speed: 40 MPH Project #: 17-1073-035 Southbound Spot Speeds 10 .1 12 j 14 _I 16 j 18 20 22 24 .1 26 j 28 30 32 34 r=mr 36 38 -o 40 42 (/) 44 46 48 50 _1 52 j 54 j 56 j 58 _1 60 j 62 64 j 66 j 68 j 79 0 2 4 6 Number of Vehicles SPEED PARAMETERS Class Count Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # In Pace Percent Pace in % / # Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 60 28 - 44 38 mph 42 mph 33 - 42 _ 46 77% 11% 17 12% /7 HB -171-Item 6. - 145 Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach DATE: 41312017 Location: Graham St Bet. Heil Ave & Edinger Ave TIME: 13:30-14:15 Posted Speed: 40 MPH Project #: 17-1073-035 Northbound & Southbound Spot Speeds Al_t_Vehieles Speed mph <=10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 34 36 38 '0 40 ci O _, 42 oo 44 46 48 50 52 64 56 58 60 62 64 66 _I 68 70 10 11 3 0 5 10 15 Number of Vehicles SPEED PARAMETERS Class Count Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % / # Below Pace % I # Above Pace ALL 116 26 - 48 37 mph 41 mph 33 - 42 81 70% 20% /24 10% /11 HB -172-Item 6. - 146 Pace 36-45 M.P.H. % in Pace 64 % Of Vehicles 10 -1 Posted Speed Limit 45 M.P.H. Accident Rate(Acc/MVM)= 0.81 State Rate= 3.35 ; Performed By NDS Approved: City Of Huntington Beach Date: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA Traffic Engineering Speed Survey # of Lanes [ I Two [ ] Three [ X ] Four [ I Six Other Median [ ] Raised [ X ] Painted [I Painted Center Line Bike Lanes [ X I Yes [ ] No Complete section below to certify a copy of this original survey. This document is a correct copy of the original in the PW Dept. Grading [ X ] Flat [ ] Sloped [ ] OCFCD Channel Parking [ ] Yes [XI No Land Use [I Commercial [ I Industrial [ X ] Residential Date Sign Title City of Huntington Beach CA Public Works Department HB -173-Item 6. - 147 Speed mph ALL Vehicles 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 <=10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 8 2 4 Number of Vehicles 2 38 "1:3 40 CL 42 CO 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 SPEED PARAMETERS Class Count Range 50th Percentile 86th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % / # Below Pace % I # Above Pace ALL 50 29 - 51 42 mph 47 mph 36 - 45 34 68% 12% /8 20% /10 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach DATE: 3131/2017 Location: Graham St Bet. Edinger Ave & Solsa Ave TIME: 13:20-14:11 Posted Speed: 45 MPH Project #: 17-1073-036 Northbound Spot Speeds HB -174-Item 6. - 148 6 8 2 4 Number of Vehicles ALL Vehicles 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 _p n 38 -0 40 0_ 42 (7) 1 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 SPEED PARAMETERS Class Count Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % It Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 51 26 - 48 37 mph 43 mph 32 - 41 34 67% 13% /7 20% /10 44 46 48 50 52 54 _1 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 Speed mph 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach DATE: 3/31/2017 Location: Graham St Bet. Edinger Ave & Bolsa Ave TIME: 13:20-14:11 Posted Speed: 45 MPH Project #: 17-1073-036 Southbound Spot Speeds HB -175-Item 6. - 149 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 20 22 24 26 28 48 48 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 Speed - MPH 40 I 42 44 46 30 32 34 36 38 Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach DATE: 313112017 Location: Graham St Bet. Edinger Ave & Bolsa Ave TIME: 13:20-14:11 Posted Speed: 45 MPH Project #: 17-1073-036 Northbound & Southbound Spot Speeds Speed mph ALL Vehicles <=10 11 12 13 10 _ 12 _ 14 16 18 49 50 50 _ 51 52 52 53 54 55 56 56 57 58 58 _1 59 80 60 61 62 62 63 64 64 65 66 66 67 68 66 69 >=70 70 0 1 0 Number of Vehicles SPEED PARAMETERS Class Count Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace %! # Below Pace % (# Above Pace ALL __, 101 26 - 51 40 mph 45 mph 36 - 45 65 64% 23% /24 12% /12 HB -176-Item 6. - 150 MPH 60 59 58 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 6 35 34 33 32 31 0 0 0 0 Dl Dl 0 TOTAL CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA o o 0 Traffic Engineering Speed Survey 01 01 0 01 1 1 0 01 01 0 01 1 I 0 21 31 2 I 1 21 1 21 41 2 31 31 3 41 51 4 6 1 6 12 New Speed Limit Street Surveyed etween Pate Surveyed Rime Surveyed 85th % 0 1 Pace 0 %JssPace 5 3 4 Of Vehicles 6 6 Posted Speed Limit 9 HEIL AVENUE SAYBROOK ST TO BOLSA CHICA ST 4/4/17 2.05 PM to 2.25 PM 42 M.P.H. 34 - 43 M.P.H. 85% 107 35 M.P.H. 35 M.P.H. Accident Rate(AcciMVM)= 0.56 State Rate--- 3.35 perfoimed By DS Approved; City Of Iluniington Beach Date: 29 28 27 26 25 22 21 20 9 0 Robert Stachels1d, Transportation Manager 0 R.T.E. 1651 0 0 Remarks o Numerous uncontrolled residential access locations o along the street segment with considerable cross traffic, o and a school with on-street parking along the western 0 portion of the segment with pedestrians and on-street o parking activities. These conditions may not be readily apparent, therefore, a 5 mph reduction is applied for a 0 posted speed limit of 35 mph to facilitate the safe and orderly flow of traffic. 24 23 EB WB 0 1 0 1 3 4 3 5 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 7 16 15 14 3 12 1 10 # of Lanes [ X ] Two [ 1 Three [ I Four [ ] Six Other Median [ I Raised I X ] Painted [ ] Painted Center Line Complete section below to certify a copy of this original survey. Bike Lanes [XI Yes [ I No This document is a correct copy of the original in the PW Dept Grading [ X ] Flat [ ] Sloped II OCFCD Channel Parking LX ] Yes [1 No Date Sign Title Land Use [I Commercial [ ] Industrial [ X ] Residential City of Huntington Beach CA Public Works Department HB -177-Item 6. - 151 MPH 60 59 58 EB WB TOTAL CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA Traffic Engineering Speed Survey Street Surveyed flEfL AVENUE Between GOLDEN WEST ST TO BEACH BLVD Date Surveyed 5112/17 ime Surveyed 9:45 AM to 10:00 AM 85th % 46 M.P.H. 0 2 5 1 6 01 0 2 2 31 3 61 5 6 61 6 6 51 3 5 0 4 ace 6 1 3,1, In Pace 12 8 Of Vehicles 38 - 47 M,P.1-1, 84% 111 5 5 10 4 51 4 5 9 osted Speed Limit 45 MPH. 3 4 61 3 6 91 4 9 9 13 [New Speed Limit 45 M.P.H. Accident Rate(Acc/MVIVI)= 1.30 State Rate= performed By DS Approved: City Of Huntington Beach Date: Robert Stachelski, Transportation Manager R.T.E. 1651 0 0 0 0 3.35 15 14 13 12 I T 10 # of Lanes [ ] Two [ 1 Three [ X ] Four [ 1 Six Other Median [ ] Raised (1 Painted j X) Painted Center Line Bike Lanes [ ] Yes LX I No Grading [ X 1 Flat [I Sloped [I OCFCD Channel Parking [XI Yes [I No Land Use [1 Commercial [1 Industrial [ X ] Residential Complete section below to certify a copy of this original survey. This document is a correct copy of the original in the PW Dept. Date Sign Title City of Huntington Beach CA Public Works Department HB -178-Item 6. - 152 MPH 60 59 8 57 6 5 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 4 33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 8 17 16 15 4 13 12 11 0 TOTAL CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA o I 0 0 Traffic Engineering Speed Survey Street Surveyed Street Surveyed INDIANAPOLIS AVENUE INDIANAPOLIS AVENUE Between Between LAKE ST TO BEACH BLVD LAKE ST TO BEACH BLVD Date Surveyed 5/12/17 Time Surveyed Time Surveyed 10:15 AM to 10:35 AM 10:15 AM to 10:35 AM 0 01 0 0 01 0 0 01 0 01 0 0 01 0 01 0 0 0 1 01 1 85th % 0 0 Pace 0 0 % In Pace 0 1 Of Vehicles 0 0 Posted Speed Limit 0 1 New Speed Limit 32 M.P.H. 25 - 34 M.P.H. 88% 100 30 M.P.H. 30 M.P.H Accident Rate(Acc/MVM). 1.72 State Rate= 3.05 performed By performed By DS DS Approved: City Of Huntington Beach Date; Robert Stachelski, Transportation Manager 7 15 R.T.E. 1651 4 12 5 10 Remarks 7 8 4 8 5 5 61 6 12 3 11 3 4 2 1 2 3 2 2 3 0 0 01 0 # of Lanes [XI Two [ I Three [ 1 Four [ ] Six Other Median [ 1 Raised [ ] Painted [ X ] Painted Center Line Complete section below to certify a copy of this original survey. I Bike Lanes [ ] Yes [ X I No This document is a correct copy of the original in the PW Dept. Grading [ X ] Flat [ ] Sloped [ ] OCFCD Channel Parking [ X 1 Yes [1 No Date Sign Title Land Use [ ] Commercial [1 Industrial [ X ] Residential City of Huntington Beach CA Public Works Department EB WB 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 8 8 6 0 0 0 HB -179-Item 6. - 153 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA Traffic Engineering Speed Survey treet Surveyed INDIANAPOLIS AVENUE TOTAL euveen BEACH BLVD TO NEWLAND ST ate Surveyed 4/27/17 Time Surveyed 9:30 AM to 9:55 AM 85th % 40 MPH 33-42 M.P.H. 111% In Pace 86% Of Vehicles 102 osted Speed Limit 35 MPH, ew Speed Limit 35 M.P.H Accident Rate(Acc/MVM). 0.52 State Rate= 3.05 Performed By DS Approved: City Of Huntington Beach Date: Robert Stachaski, Transportation Manager R.T.E. 1651 0 remarks 0 0 0 On-street parking exists along both sides of the street segment with parking activity. A school crossing is located midway on the segment with school related pedestrian crossings. The street segment fronts single family residences along the entire segment except at the west and east end where full access driveways are located to a commercial building. These conditions may not be readily apparent. A 5 mph reduction is applied for a posted speed limit of 35 mph to facilitate the safe and efficient flow of traffic, # of Lanes [ X ] Two [ ] Three [ ] Four [ ] Six Other Median [ ] Raised [ ] Painted [ X ] Painted Center Line Complete section below to certify a copy of this original survey. Bike Lanes [ X ] Yes [ ] No Grading [ X ] Flat [1 Sloped [ 1 OCFCD Channel Parking IX] Yes [ ] No Date Sign Title Land Use [ ] Commercial [ ] Industrial [Xl Residential City of Huntington Beach CA Public Works Department This document is a correct copy of the original in the PW Dept HB -180-Item 6. - 154 Perfortned By NDS Pace 34-43 M.P.H. % In Pace 68 % # Of Vehicles 155 Posted Speed Limit 40 M.P.H. Accident Rate(Acc/MVM)= 0.28 State Rate= 3.35 Approved: City Of Huntington Beach D ate: # of Lanes [I Two [ ] Three [ X ] Four [ ] Six Other Median [ ] Raised [ X1 Painted [ ] Painted Center Line Bike Lanes [ X ] Yes [ ] No CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA Traffic Engineering Speed Survey Remarks Significant school related pedestrian activity and access locations at one mid-segment location. Pedestrian activity including a school crossing location and high concentration of vehicular movements during peak periods may not be readily apparent. Adjacent street segments posted 40 mph based on an engineering survey. A 5 mph reduction is applied to promote the orderly flow of traffic while maintaining the safety needs of the community. Complete section below to certify a copy of this original survey. This document is a correct copy of the original in the PW Dept. Grading [X] Flat [ 1 Sloped [ ] DCFCD Channel Parking [ ] Yes [ X ] No Land Use [ ] Commercial [ ] Industrial [ X ] Residential Date Sign Title City of Huntington Beach CA Public Works Department HB -181-Item 6. - 155 Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach Location: Indianapolis Ave Bet. Newland St 8, Magnolia St Posted Speed: 40 MPH Project #: 17-1073-037 Eastbound Spot Speeds 10 J 12 14 16 _ 18 J 20 J 22 J 24 J 26 28 J 30 32 34 x 36 CA- 38 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 _ 62 64 66 68 70 2 4 Number of Vehicles 3 6 8 DATE: 411412017 TIME: 15:10-16:00 Speed mph <=10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 ALL Vehicles SPEED PARAMETERS Class Count Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace %1# Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 79 33 - 54 40 mph 46 mph 34 - 43 55 70%_ 2% 12 28% /22 HB -182-Item 6. - 156 Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach DATE: 4114/2017 TIME: 15:10-16:00 Location: Indianapolis Ave Bet Newland St & Magnolia St Posted Speed: 40 MPH Project #: 17-1073-037 Westbound Spot Speeds ALL Vehicles 10 12 14 J 16 J 18 J 20 J 22 j 24 j 26 _I 28 30 32 34 36 _ CL 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 J 56 J 58 J 66 .1 62 64 66 68 70 0 Speed mph <=10 11 12 13 , 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 22 23 24 25 26 27 _ 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 _ 37 38 39 40 41_ 42 43 44 45 46 47_ 48 49 50 51_ 62 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62_ 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 2 4 6 8 Number of Vehicles 1 SPEED PARAMETERS Class Count Range 50th Percentile 86th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % I # Below Pace % I # Above Pace ALL 76 31 -52 39 mph 45 mph 33 - 42 51 67% 7% 16 25% 119 HB -183-Item 6. - 157 0 5 Number of Vehicles 10 15 DATE: 4/1412017 TIME: 15:10-16:00 ALL Vehicles Speed mph 11 • .12: 10 >=70 Location: Indianapolis Ave Bet. Newland St & Magnolia St Posted Speed: 40 MPH Project #: 17-1073-037 36 0- 38 40 ID 0_ 42 44 46 50 64 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 SPEED PARAMETERS Class Count Range 60th Percentile 86th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % / # Below Pace % I # Above Pace ALL 155 31 - 54 40 mph _ 46 mph 34 - 43 106 68% 7% 112 24% /37 <=10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 10 10 34 35 36 37 38 39 12 13 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 HB -184-Item 6. - 158 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA Traffic Engineering Speed Survey Street Surveyed INDIANAPOLIS AVENUE etween MAGNOLIA ST TO BROOKHURST ST ate Surveyed 6121/17 line Surveyed 1:20 PM to 1:45 PM 85th % 45 M.P.H. 34 - 43 M.P.H. In Pace 74% Of Vehicles 101 osted Speed Limit 40 M.P.H. ew Speed Limit 40 M.P.H. Accident Rate(Acc/MVIVI). 0.00 State Rate= 3.35 erfonned 13y DS Approved: City Of Huntington Beach Date: Robert StacheIski, Transportation Manager R.I.P.. 1651 School zones exist within the street segment with high pedestrian and vehicular activity during school peak times. On-street parking is utilized for drop-off and pick- up activities. These conditions may not be readily apparent. Adjacent streets posted 40 mph based on an engineering survey. A 5 mph reduction is applied which is reasonable and prudent to facilitate the orderly flow of traffic. # of Lanes Median Bike Lanes Grading Parking Land Use [ I Two [ ] Three [ X ] Four [ I Six Other [ I Raised [ X I Painted [ Painted Center Line Complete section below to certify a copy of this original survey. [ X ] Yes ] No This document is a correct copy of the original in the PW Dept. [ X I Flat [ Sloped [ I OCFCD Channel [ ] Yes [ X ] No Date Sign Title [ I Commercial [ Industrial [ X ] Residential City of Huntington Beach CA Public Works Department HB -185-Item 6. - 159 Pace 37-46 M_P.H. % In Pace 66 % ri Of Vehicles 102 Posted Speed Limit 40 MPH. Accident Rate(Acc/MVM). 1.14 State Rate= 3.35 Performed By NDS Approved: City Of Huntington Beach Date: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA Traffic Engineering Speed Survey Remarks The segment experiences large volumes of pedestrians and bicycle traffic associated with coastal access at the southern end. The activity is particularly high during the warmer weather months of the year and on weekends. A large percentage of the bicycle activity is recreational with a wide range of skills and abilities, including young children. Bus stops are located in the segment that intermittently blocks the adjacent bike lanes. The area also serves as an observation point for the adjacent wetland habitat area, attracting visitors. On street parking with parking activity related to coastal access exists mid-segment. These conditions may not be apparent to motorists. A 5 mph reduction is applied for a posted speed limit of 40 mph for the safe and orderly movement of traffic. # of Lanes [ ] Two [ ] Three [ X] Four [ ] Six Other Median [ ] Raised [ X ] Painted [ ] Painted Center Line Bike Lanes [ X ] Yes [ ] No Grading [ X ] Flat [ ] Sloped [ ] OCFCD Channel Parking [ X ] Yes [ ] No Land Use [ ] Commercial [ X 1 Industrial [ X ] Residential Complete section below to certify a copy of this original survey. This document is a correct copy of the original in the PW Dept. Date Sign Title City of Huntington Beach CA Public Works Department HB -186-Item 6. - 160 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach DATE: 411412017 Location: Magnolia St Bet, Pacific Coast Hwy & Banning Ave TIME: 12:45-13:13 Posted Speed: 40 MPH Project #: 17-1073-039 Northbound Spot Speeds 10 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 I Ii m 38 f P 40 a) a) eL 42 CO 44 46 _i 48 50 52 54 1 56 58 60 36 1 62 64 _ 66 68 70 2 4 6 8 Number of Vehicles SPEED PARAMETERS Class Count Range 60th Percentile 86th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % / # Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 52 32- 58 40 mph 48 mph 35 - 44 39 75% 3% /2 22% / 11 HB -187-Item 6. - 161 Speed mph <=1 0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 ALL Vehicles 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 "0 40 a) a) 46 48 50 1 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 0 DATE: 4/14/2017 TIME: 12:45-13:13 Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach Location: Magnolia St Bet. Pacific Coast Hwy & Banning Ave Posted Speed: 40 MPH Project #: 17-1073-039 Southbound Spot Speeds 2 4 Number of Vehicles SPEED PARAMETERS Class Count Range 60th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent Pace in % / # Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 50 28 - 53 39 mph 46 mph 37 - 46 32 64% 28% / 14 8% /4 HB -188-Item 6. - 162 DATE: 411412017 TIME: 12:45-13:13 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 a_ 38 39 40 10" 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 85 66 67 68 69 >=70 Speed mph Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach Location: Magnolia St Bet. Pacific Coast Hwy & Banning Ave Posted Speed: 40 MPH Project #: 17-1073-039 Northbound & Southbound Spot Speeds 10 12 14 16 18 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 44 46 48 50 52 _1 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 0 5 10 15 Number of Vehicles SPEED PARAMETERS Class Count Range 60th Percentile 86th Percentile 10 MPH Pace 4 in Pace Percent in Pace 'A /4 Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 102 28 - 58 40 mph 46 mph 37 - 46 67 66% 22% 123 12% /12 HB -189-Item 6. - 163 Pact 42-51 MPH, % In Pace 60 % # Of Vehicles 99 Posted Speed Limit 45 M.P.H. Accident Rate(Acc/MVM)= 0.24 State Rate= Approved: City Of Huntington Beach Date: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA Traffic Engineering Speed Survey Remarks The segment experiences large volumes of pedestrians and bicycle traffic associated with coastal access to the south. The activity is particularly high during the warmer weather months of the year and on weekends. A large percentage of the bicycle activity is recreational with a wide range of skills and abilities, including young children. Half the segment along the west side is unimproved with a shoulder area only for pedestrians. Bus stops are located in the segment that intermittently blocks the adjacent bike lanes. On street parking with parking activity related to coastal access exists along the southern end of the segment. These conditions may not be apparent to motorists. A 5 mph reduction is applied for a posted speed limit of 45 mph for the safe and orderly movement of traffic. [ ] Two [ Three [ X ] Four [ ] Six Other [ ] Raised j X] Painted [ ] Painted Center Line Complete section below to certify a copy of this original survey. # of Lanes Median Bike Lanes [ X ] Yes Grading [ X ] Flat Parking [ X ] Yes [ No This document is a correct copy of the original in the PW Dept ] Sloped [ ] OCFCD Channel [ ] No Date Sign Title City of Huntington Beach CA Public Works Department Land Use [J Commercial [ X ] Industrial [ X I Residential HB -190-Item 6. - 164 Speed mph 0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 44 _ 46 48 r- 50 j 52 54 56 j 60 j 62 j 64 j 66 j 68 j 70 0 ALL:Vehicles: 10 12 14 16 j 18 j 20 j 22 j 24 j 26 j 28 30 32 34 Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach DATE: 4114/2017 Location: Magnolia St Bet. Banning Ave & Hamilton Ave DATE: 4114/2017 Location: Magnolia St Bet. Banning Ave & Hamilton Ave Posted Speed: 45 MPH Project #: 17-1073-040 TIME: 12:13-12:36 Posted Speed: 45 MPH Project #: 17-1073-040 TIME: 12:13-12:36 Northbound Spot Speeds 2 4 6 Number of Vehicles SPEED PARAMETERS Class Count Range 60th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % / # Below Pace % /# Above Pace ALL 51 29 - 58 46 mph 53 mph 44 - 53 31 61% — 29% 115 10% /5 HB -191-Item 6. - 165 DATE: 411412017 TIME: 12:13-12:36 Speed mph <=10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 36 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 ALL Vehicles 50 52 54 56 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 2 38 -o 40 a) a) 44 46 48 CL 42 58 2 4 Number of Veh ides 0 Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach Location: Magnolia St Bet. Banning Ave & Hamilton Ave Posted Speed: 45 MPH Project #: 17-1073-040 Southbound Spot Speeds 8 SPEED PARAMETERS Class Count Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % I # Below Pace %/ # Above Pace P&L. 48 35-68 45 mph 50 mph _ 37 - 46 30 63% 2% /1 36% /17 HB -192-Item 6. - 166 Speed mph <=10 11 12 13 14 16 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 ALL Vehicles 44 46 I- 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 46 I 50 52 54 56 5 10 57 68 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach DATE: 411412017 TIME: 12:13-12:36 Location: Magnolia St Bet. Banning Ave & Hamilton Ave Posted Speed: 45 MPH Project #: 17-1073-040 Northbound & Southbound Spot Speeds Number of Vehicles SPEED PARAMETERS Class Count Range 60th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent Pace in % / # Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 99 29 - 68 46 mph 52 mph 42 - 51 59 60% 25% /25 16% /15 HB -193-Item 6. - 167 0I 0 12 In Pace 80% 10 5 I 11 IN Of Vehicles 107 21 4 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA Traffic Engineering Speed Survey Street Surveyed MAGNOLIA STREET 3 21 7 liPace 39 48 M.P.H. 7 Rested Speed Limi 45 M.P. Approved: City Of Huntington Beach Robert Stachelski, Transportation Manager R.T.E. 1651 Remarks 0 0 0 0 0 0 # of Lanes [ ] Two [ 1 Three [ X ] Four [ ] Six Other Median [ ] Raised [ X 3 Painted [3 Painted Center Line Complete section below to certify a copy of this original survey. Bike Lanes [ X ] Yes [1 No Grading [ X ] Flat [3 Sloped [ I OCFCD Channel Parking [X 3 Yes [3 No Date Sign Title Land Use [1 Commercial [ I Industrial [ X ] Residential City of Huntington Beach CA Public Works Department This document is a cortect copy of the original in the PW Dept. HB -194-Item 6. - 168 # of Lanes [ I Two [ 1 Three [ X ] Four [ ] Six Other Median [ X ] Raised [ ] Painted [1 Painted Center Line Complete section below to certify a copy of this original sunray. Bike Lanes [ X ] Yes [ No This document is a correct copy of the original in the PW Dept. Grading [ X ] Flat [1 Sloped [ ] OCFCD Channel Parking [ I Yes [ X ] No Date Sign Title Land Use [ X ] Commercial [ I Industrial [ X ] Residential City of Huntington Beach CA Public Works Department HB -195-Item 6. - 169 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA o I oil Traffic Engineering Speed Survey Street Surveyed Between % In Pace Of Vehicles osted Speed Limit ew Speed Limit MAGNOLIA STREET ADAMS AVE TO GARFIELD AVE 82% 100 45 M.P.H. 45 MPH. Accident Rate(Acc/MVM). 0.85 State Rate= Approved: City Of Huntington Beach Robert Stachelski, Transportation Manager R.T.E. 1651 Remarks # of Lanes [ 1 Two I ] Three [ X ] Four [ ] Six Other Median [ I Raised [ ] Painted X I Painted Center Line Complete section below to certify a copy of this original survey. Bike Lanes [ X ] Yes [ ] No Grading [ X] Flat I I Sloped [I OCFCD Channel Parking [ ] Yes [ X] No Date Sign Title Land Use [ X Commercial [ ] Industrial [ X Residential City of Huntington Beach CA Public Works Department This document is a correct copy of the original in the PW Dept. HB -196-Item 6. - 170 Performed By NDS Pace 30-39 M.P.H. %JnPace 49 % Of Vehicles 102 Posted Speed Limit 45 M.P.H. Accident Rate(Acc/MVM)= 1.68 State Rate---- 3.35 Approved: City Of Huntington Beach Date: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA Traffic Engineering Speed Survey # of Lanes Median Bike Lanes Grading Parking Land Use [ I Two [1 Three [ X ] Four [ ] Six Other [ I Raised [ X ] Painted [ ] Painted Center Line Complete section below to certify a copy of this original survey. [ ] Yes [ X ] No This document is a correct copy of the original in the PW Dept. [ X ] Flat [ ] Sloped [ ] OCFCD Channel [J Yes [ X ] No Date Sign Title [ X ] Commercial [1 Industrial [ X ] Residential City of Huntington Beach CA Public Works Department HB -197-Item 6. - 171 20 22 24 26 28 66 67 68 69 >=70 Spot Speed Study Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach DATE: 417/2017 TIME: 12:45-13:36 Location: Magnolia St Bet. Warner Ave & 1-405 Posted Speed: 45 MPH Project #: 17-1073-044 Northbound Spot Speeds 10 12 14 16 _1 18 J 30 32 1 34 0- 2 38 'a 40 0_(1) 42 CO 44 46 50 52 54 _ 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 2 4 6 Number of Vehicles SPEED PARAMETERS Class Count Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent Pace in % / # Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 51 25 - 52 39 mph 47 mph 32 - 41 24 47% 17% /9 36% /18 0 HB -198-Item 6. - 172 Speed mph ALL Vehicles 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 62 64 66 68 70 60 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 4 6 2 Number of Vehicles SPEED PARAMETERS Class Count Range 50th Percentile 86th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % 1# Below Pace % Ill Above Pace ALL 51 27 - 49 38 mph 44 mph 30 - 39 , 27 53% 7% 14 _ 40% / 20 30 32 34 44 10 _ 12 14 16 18 20 22 _I 24 _ 26 28 <=10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 44 45 0 Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach DATE: 4(7/2017 Location: Magnolia St Bet. Warner Ave & 1-405 TIME: 12:45-13:36 Posted Speed: 45 MPH Project #: 17-1073-044 Southbound Spot Speeds HB -199-Item 6. - 173 Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach Location: Magnolia St Bet. Warner Ave & 1-405 Posted Speed: 45 MPH Project #: 17-1073-044 Northbound & Southbound Spot Speeds 10 12 14 16 18 26 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 0- 38 • -0 40 a) U) CL 42 44 46 5 10 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 Number of Vehicles SPEED PARAMETERS Class Count Range 60th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % / # Below Pace % /# Above Pace ALL 102 25- 52 38 mph 46 mph 30- 39 50 49% 8% / 9 43% /43 60 62 64 66 68 70 0 DATE: 4/7/2017 TIME: 12:45-13:36 Speed mph ALL Vehicles 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 48 48 48 49 50 SO 50 SO 51 52 52 52 52 53 53 54 54 54 54 55 55 56 56 56 56 57 58 58 58 58 HB -200-Item 6. - 174 Pace 29-38 M.P.H. % In Pace 68 % Of Vehicles 141 Posted Speed Limit 35 M.P.H. Accident Rate(Acc/MVM). 358 State Rate= 135 Performed By NDS Approved: City Of Huntington Beach Dale: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA Traffic Engineering Speed Survey Remarks The street segment is adjacent to an active park, high school, and emergency vehicle access from City HaIl. Vehicular and pedestrian peak periods occur with on- street parking activities along the segment. The accident rate for the street segment is higher than the state average for a similar street. These conditions may not be readily apparent therefore a posted speed limit of 35 mph is established to facilitate the safe and orderly flow of traffic. # of Lanes [ ] Two [ ] Three [ X j Four [ ] Six Other Median [ X ] Raised [ ] Painted [ ] Painted Center Line Bike Lanes [ X ] Yes [ 1 No Complete section below to certify a copy of this original survey. This document is a correct copy of the original in the PW Dept. Grading [ X ] Flat [ ] Sloped [ ] OCFCD Channel Parking [ X 1 Yes [ ] No Land Use 1] Commercial [ I Industrial [ X ] Residential Date Sign Title City of Huntington Beach CA Public Works Department HB -201-Item 6. - 175 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 x 36 0_ 38 V 40 a) a) C.)-42 C/) 46 48 50 52 DATE: 411412017 TIME: 10:15-11:00 Speed mph <=10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 48 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 ALL Vehicles Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach Location: Main St Bet. Adams Ave & Yorktown Ave Posted Speed: 35 MPH Project #: 17-1073-045 Northbound Spot Speeds 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 2 4 6 8 10 Number of Vehicles Number of Vehicles SPEED PARAMETERS Class Count Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent Pace in % / # Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 68 24 - 42 33 mph 37 mph 28 - 37 53 78% 11% /8 11% /7 HB -202-Item 6. - 176 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 2 4 Number of Vehicles 0 Speed mph <=10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 28 30 32 34 36 2 38 -o 40 a) 2 Ct. 42 co 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach DATE: 4/1412017 TIME: 10:15-11:00 Location: Main St Set. Adams Ave & Yorktown Ave Posted Speed: 35 MPH Project #: 17-1073-046 Southbound Spot Speeds SPEED PARAMETERS Class Count Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace V. I # Below Pace % I # Above Pace ALL 81 24-51 36 mph 42 mph _ 29- 38 48 59% 9% 18 31% / 25 8 HB -203-Item 6. - 177 12 _ 14 _ 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 a_ 2 38 -0 40 (1) a 42 OD 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 89 >=70 60 62 64 66 68 70 ALL Vehicles 10 Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach DATE: 4/14/2017 TIME: 10:15-11:00 Location: Main St Bet. Adams Ave & Yorktown Ave Posted Speed: 35 MPH Project #: 17-1073-045 Northbound & Southbound Spot Speeds 5 10 15 Number of Vehicles SPEED PARAMETERS Class Count Range 60th Percentile 86th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % I # Below Pace % I # Above Pace ALL 149 24 - 51 34 mph _ 40 mph 29 - 38 101 68% 12% /18 21% /30 HB -204-Item 6. - 178 Pace 36-45 M.P.H. % In Pace 69 % # Of Vehicles 150 Posted Speed Limit 45 M.P.H. Accident Rate(Acc/MVM)= 1.60 State Rate= 3.35 Performed By NDS Approved: City Of Huntington Beach Date: Street Surveyed Between Date Surveyed Time Surveyed 85th % YORKTOWN AVE TO BEACH BLVD MAIN STREET CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA Traffic Engineering Speed Survey # of Lanes [ Two [ ] Three [ I Four [X] Six Other Median [ X ] Raised [ 3 Painted [ ] Painted Center Line Complete section below to certify a copy of this original survey. Bike Lanes [XI Yes 11 No This document is a correct copy of the original in the PW Dept Grading Parking Land Use [ X ] Flat [ ] Sloped f ] OCFCD Channel [I Yes [ X ] No Date Sign Title [ X ] Commercial [ ] Industrial [ X 3 Residential City of Huntington Beach CA Public Works Department HB -205-Item 6. - 179 10 12 J 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 J 28 30 32 34 36 a- 2 38 -0 40 sa, CL) 42 (/) 44 46 48 50 52 _I 54 56 58 60 0 70 62 64 66 68 2 4 6 8 Number of Vehicles Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach DATE: 4114/2017 Location: Main St Bet. Yorktown Ave & Beach Blvd TIME: 11:15-12:00 Posted Speed: 45 MPH Project #: 17-1073-046 Northbound Spot Speeds SPEED PARAMETERS Class Count Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # In Pace Percent in Pace % / # Below Pace % I # Above Pace ALL 74 29-61 41 mph 46 mph 38-47 — 48 - 65% - 25% 119 10% 17 HB -206-Item 6. - 180 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach DATE: 411412017 Location: Main St Bet, Yorktown Ave & Beach Blvd TIME: 11:15-12:00 Posted Speed: 45 MPH Project #: 17-1073-046 Southbound Spot Speeds 6 8 10 12 14 j 16 j 18 20 22 24 j 26 j 28 30 j 32 34 36 2 38 73 40 U) CL 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 0 2 4 Number of Vehicles SPEED PARAMETERS Class Count Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent Pace in % / # Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 76 32 - 50 40 mph 45 mph 36 - 45 57 75% 15% /12 10% /7 HB -207-Item 6. - 181 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 64 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >,-70 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 6 2 38 zi 40 (I) ca. 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 It 12 12 •11 •11 13 10 12 Speed mph <=10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 I 14 16 18 20 Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach DATE: 411412017 TIME: 11:15-12:00 Location: Main St Bet. Yorktown Ave & Beach Blvd Posted Speed: 45 MPH Project #: 17-1073-046 Northbound & Southbound Spot Speeds 10 15 5 Number of Vehicles SPEED PARAMETERS Class Count Range 60th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % / # Below Pace % /# Above Pace ALL 150 29 - 61 41 mph 45 mph 36 - 45 103 69% 16% /25 _ 15% /22 HB -208-Item 6. - 182 Pace 37-46 MPH. % In Pace 58% II Of Vehicles 102 Posted Speed Limit 45 M.P.H. Accident Rate(AcdMVM). 0.45 State Rate Approved: City Of Huntington Beach Date: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA Traffic Engineering Speed Survey Remarks # of Lanes Median Bike Lanes Grading Parking Land Use [ ] Two [ ] Three [ X j Four [ ] Six Other [ ] Raised ] Painted IX] Painted Center Line Complete section below to certify a copy of this original sunmy. [XI Yes [ J No This document is a correct copy of the original in the PW Dept. [XI Flat [ ] Sloped [I OCFCD Channel [ ] Yes [ X ] No Date Sign Title [1 Commercial [ j Industrial [ X ] Residential City of Huntington Beach CA Public Works Department HB -209-Item 6. - 183 Eastbound Spot Speeds Speed mph ALL Vehicles Spot Speed Study Prepared by: NationaL Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach DATE: 313112017 Location: McFadden Ave Set. Edwards St & Graham St TIME: 14:20-15:12 Posted Speed: 45 MPH Project #: 17-1073-047 <=10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 — 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 -46 47 48 49 4 50 51 52 53 54 55'- 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 10 j 12 j 14 16 j 18 20 j 22 j 24 j 26 j 28 30 32 34 36 2 38 -0 40 a) - a) - 44 46 50 52 54 56 j 56 j 60 j 62 j 64 j 66 j 68 j 70 Q. 42 -7 (j) 0 2 4 6 Number of Vehicles SPEED PARAMETERS Class Count Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pate # in Pace Percent in Pace %/ # Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 52 29 - 54 42 mph 49 mph 40 - 49 31 60% 32% 117 8% 14 HB -210-Item 6. - 184 Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach DATE: 313112017 TIME: 14:20-15:12 Location: McFadden Ave Bet. Edwards St & Graham St Posted Speed: 45 MPH Project #: 17-1073-047 Westbound Spot Speeds 0 2 6 Number of Vehicles SPEED PARAMETERS Class Count Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % / # Below Pace %1# Above Pace ALL 50 30 - 53 39 mph 48 mph 34 - 43 30 60% 14% / 7 26% /13 HB -211-Item 6. - 185 Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach DATE: 3/3112017 TIME: 14:20-15:12 Location: McFadden Ave Bet, Edwards St & Graham St Posted Speed: 45 MPH Project #: 17-1073-047 Eastbound & Westbound Spot Speeds Number of Vehicles SPEED PARAMETERS Class Count Range 60th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent Pace in % / # Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 102 29 - 54 41 mph 47 mph 37 - 46 59 58% 24% /25 18% 118 HB -212-Item 6. - 186 Pace 35-44 M.P.H. % In Pace 77 % Of Vehicles 108 Posted Speed Limit 45 MPH. Accident Rate(Acc/MVM)= 0.47 State Rate-, 3.35 Performed By NDS Approved: City Of Huntington Beach Date: MCFADDEN AVE EDWARDS ST TO GOLDENWEST ST CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA Traffic Engineering Speed Survey Remarks # of Lanes [ ] Two [ J Three [ X ] Four [I Six Other Median ] Raised [ X ] Painted [ I Painted Center Line Bike Lanes [ X ] Yes [1 No Complete section below to certify a copy of this original survey. This document is a correct copy of the original in the PW Dept. Grading [ X ] Flat [ I Sloped [ ] OCFCD Channel Parking [ ] Yes [ X I No Land Use [ ] Commercial [ ] Industrial [ X ] Residential Date Sign Title City of Huntington Beach CA Public Works Department HB -213-Item 6. - 187 Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach DATE: 3/3112017 TIME: 15:21-16:08 Location: McFadden Ave Bet. Edwards St & Goldenwest St Posted Speed: 45 MPH Project #: 17-1073-048 Eastbound Spot Speeds Speed mph ALL Vehicles <=113 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 25 26 27 28 30 31 32 33 34 26 38 "Ct 40 a) - a) CL 42 rf) 44 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 2 46 49 50 51 52 48 50 52 53 54 54 55 56 56 57 58 58 59 eo 60 GI 62 62 63 64 64 65 66 66 67 68 68 69 >=70 70 0 2 4 8 Number of Vehicles SPEED PARAMETERS Class Count Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace ¼! # Below Pace ¼! # Above Pace ALL 54 33 - 50 41 mph 46 mph 37 - 46 41 76% 12% /7 12% IS HB -214-Item 6. - 188 46 48 Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach DATE: 313'112017 Location: McFadden Ave Bet. Edwards St & Goldenwest St TIME: 15:21-16:08 Posted Speed: 45 MPH Project #: 17-1073-048 Westbound Spot Speeds Speed mi.A. vehicles mph <=10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 34 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 0_ M 38 1:3 40 a) CI 42 2 4 6 8 Number of Vehicles SPEED PARAMETERS Class Count Range 60th Percentile 86th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % 1# Below Pace % /# Above Pace ALL 54 31 -53 40 mph 45 mph 35 - 44 38 70% 12% / 7 17% /9 50 _1 52 54 56 58 60 62 84 66 .1 68 70 0 HB -215-Item 6. - 189 DATE: 3/31/2017 Location: McFadden Ave set. Edwards St & Goldenwest St TIME: 15:21-16:08 Posted Speed: 45 MPH Project #: 17-1073-048 Eastbound & Westbound Spot Speeds 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 34 I 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 5 Number of Vehicles 0 10 Speed - MPH 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach 15 SPEED PARAMETERS Class Count Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent Pace in % / # Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 108 31 - 53 41 mph 46 mph 35 - 44 77 71% 8% /9 21% /22 HB -216-Item 6. - 190 0 0 Remarks 0 0 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA oil Traffic Engineering Speed Survey Street Surveyed MCFADDEN AVENUE 0 4ccident Rate(Acc/MVM). 0.20 State Rate — 0 0 Robert Staehelsici, Transportation Manager R.T.E. 1651 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 # of Lanes [ ] Two [ ] Three [ X I Four [ ] Six Other Median [ ] Raised [ X ] Painted [ ] Painted Center Line Complete section below to codify a copy of this original survey. Bike Lanes [XI Yes [ I No Grading [XI Flat [ ] Sloped [ ] OCFCD Channel Parking [XI Yes 11 No Date Sign Title Land Use [ X ] Commercial [ ] Industrial [ X I Residential City of Huntington Beach CA Public Works Department This document is a correct copy of the original in the PW Dept. HB -217-Item 6. - 191 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA Traffic Engineering Speed Survey 56 Between GOTHAM) ST TO EAST CITY LIMIT 55 54 /15/17 53 52 10;45 AM 11:10 AM to Si 50 49 48 0 0 0 35 - 44 M.P.H. 47 1 1 1 2 46 45 1 2 1 2 3 44 43 1 3 3 4 42 41 5 7 5 7 12 40 M.P.H. 40 40 M.P.H. ate Surveyed line Surveyed 85th % Pace % In Pace Of Vehicles [Posted Speed Limit [New Speed Limit 39 38 37 3.35 P‘ccident Rate(Acc/MVM)= 0.70 State Rate= 36 [Performed By DS 35 34 Approved: City Of Huntington Beach 33 32 31 30 29 0 0 0 0 Robert Stachelski, Transportation Manager R.T.E. 165 .11••••n=1M.M. 28 0 0 0 0 27 0 0 0 0 0 Remarks 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 10 # of Lanes Median Bike Lanes Grading Parking Land Use [XI Two [ ] Three [ X ] Four [ ] Six Other [ ] Raised [ X ] Painted [ ] Painted Center Line [ ] Yes [ X ) No [ X ] Flat [ X ] Sloped [ ] OCFCD Channel [ I Yes [ X ] No [ ] Commercial [ I Industrial [ X ] Residential Complete section below to certify a copy of this original survey. This document is a correct copy of the original in the PW Dept. Date Sign Title City of Huntington Beach CA Public Works Department HB -218-Item 6. - 192 Street Surveyed NEWLAND STREET Between PITT TO HAMILTON AVE 6/21/17 Date Surveyed Time Surveyed 2:10 PM to 2:45 PM 37 M.P.H. 85th % 01 01 0 ace 30 - 39 M.P.H. 85% 100 0 0 01 0 0 01 0 Yo In Pace 0 0 01 0 0 k Of Vehicles 1 1 1 1 2 Posted Speed Limit 35 MPH. 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 INew Speed Limit 35 M.P.H. Accident Rate(Acc/MVM)= 1.43 State Rate= 3.05 performed By DS 3 32 31 Date; 30 2 29 0 28 27 3 26 0 25 0 24 0 0 0 0 23 0 22 0 21 0 20 2 Remarks Robert Stachelski, Transportation Manager R.T.E. 1651 MPH SB 60 59 58 7 56 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 0 45 0 47 0 46 0 45 44 0 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 TOTAL CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 0 0 0 Traffic Engineering Speed Survey Approved: City Of Huntington Beach 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 0 # of Lanes [ X ] Two [ ] Three [ ] Four [ ] Six Other Median [ I Raised [ X ] Painted [1 Painted Center Line Complete section below to certify a copy of this original survey. Bike Lanes [ X ] Yes [ ] No This document is a correct copy of the original in the PW Dept. Grading [ X ] Flat [ ] Sloped [ ] OCFCD Channel Parking ] Yes [ X ] No Date Sign Title Land Use [ ] Commercial [ X3 Industrial [ X 3 Residential City of Huntington Beach CA Public Works Department HB -219-Item 6. - 193 # of Lanes Median Bike Lanes Grading Parking Land Use [ ] Two [ J Three [ X ] Four [ ] Six Other [ ] Raised [ X ] Painted [ ] Painted Center Line [XI Yes [ ] No [ X ] Flat [ I Sloped [ ] OCFCD Channel [I Yes [ X ] No [ ] Commercial [ ] Industrial [Xi Residential !Complete section below to certify a copy of this original survey. This document is a correct copy of the original in the PW Dept. Date Sign Title City of Huntington Beach CA Public Works Department HB -220-Item 6. - 194 Pace 39-48 M.P.H. % In Pace 71% # Of Vehicles 166 Posted Speed Limit 45 M.P.H. Accident Rate(Acc/MVM)= 0.60 State Rate= Approved: City Of Huntington Beach Date: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA Traffic Engineering Speed Survey Remarks One of the two southbound lanes is dropped to a single southbound land along this street segment, with on-street parking with parking activity on the west side of the southern section of the segment. A marked crosswalk is present mid-section of the segment and adjacent street segments are posted 45 mph. These conditions may not be readily apparent, therefore, a posted speed limit of 45 mph is reasonable and safe to facilitate the orderly flow of traffic. # of Lanes [I Two ] Three [ X ] Four [ Six Other Median [ ] Raised [ X ] Painted [ ] Painted Center Line I Complete section below to certify a copy of this original survey. Bike Lanes [XI Grading [ X ] Yes [ 1 No This document is a correct copy of the original in the PW Dept. Flat [ ] Sloped [ ] OCFCD Channel Yes [ ] No Date Sign Title Parking [ X ] Land Use [I Commercial [ Industrial [ X ] Residential City of Huntington Beach CA Public Works Department HB -221-Item 6. - 195 ALL Vehicles 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 32 34 CL 42 co 2 Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach DATE: 411412017 TIME: 14:10-15:00 Location: Newland St Bet. Indianapolis Ave & Adams Ave Posted Speed: 45 MPH Project #: 17-1073-053 Northbound Spot Speeds Speed mph <=10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 39 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 2 38 0 2 4 6 8 10 Number of Vehicles SPEED PARAMETERS Class Count Range 60th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # In Pace Percent in Pace % / # Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 83 35- 57 44 mph 49 mph 39 - 48 60 72% _____ 9% 18 19% / 15 HB -222-Item 6. - 196 Speed mph ALL Vehicles 6 8 10 2 4 Number of Vehicles 62 64 66 68 70 Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach DATE: 411412017 TIME: 14:10-15:00 Location: Newland St Bet. Indianapolis Ave & Adams Ave Posted Speed: 45 MPH Project #: 17-1073-053 Southbound Spot Speeds 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 66 69 >=70 SPEED PARAMETERS ,— Class Count Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent Pace in % / # Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 83 34 - 53 43 mph 48 mph 37 - 46 68 70% 7% 16 23% /19 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 o_ 2 38 '0 40 a) 0_42 (/) 44 46 p 48 50 54 56 58 60 HB -223-Item 6. - 197 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 11 15 15 12 36 38 '0 40 CL 42 44 46 48 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >-.70 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 0 10 12 Speed mph <=10 11 12 13 14 16 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 14 16 18 20 22 _I 24 j 26 28 30 32 34 h. DATE: 4/14/2017 TIME: 14:10-15:00 Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach Location: Newland St Bet. Indianapolis Ave & Adams Ave Posted Speed: 45 MPH Project ft: 17-1073-053 Northbound & Southbound Spot Speeds 5 10 15 Number of Vehicles 20 SPEED PARAMETERS Class Count Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % / # Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 166 34-57 44 mph , 49 mph 39 - 48 116 71% 13% /23 16% /25 HB -224-Item 6. - 198 52 51 50 49 48 47 2 1 Pace 38 - 47 M.P.H. 1 2 2 1 2 2 46 45 44 % In Pace 17% 6 2 7 4 7 6 4 5 5 I# Of Vehicles 101 42 4 2 4 Posted Speed Limit 45 MPH, 40 3 ow Speed Limit 45 M.P.H. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA LTH Traffic Engineering Speed Survey Street Surveyed NEWLAND STREET 0 43 6 7 41 1 39 Accident Rate(Acc/MVM)= 0.72 State Rate= 38 3.35 37 36 35 34 33 32 Robert Stachelski, Transportation Manager Remarks # of Lanes [ ] Two [ ] Three [ X ] Four [ ] Six Other Median [ ] Raised [ X 1 Painted [ I Painted Center Line Complete section below to certify a copy of this original survey. Bike Lanes [ X ] Yes [ ] No This document is a correct copy of the original in the PW Dept. Grading [ X ] Flat [ ] Sloped [ ] OCFCD Channel Parking IX] Yes [ ] No Date Sign Title Land Use [] Commercial [ Industrial [ X I Residential City of Huntington Beach CA Public Works Department This document is a correct copy of the original in the PW Dept. HB -225-Item 6. - 199 2 5 5 4 3 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SS MPH 60 59 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 58 57 56 55 54 3 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 TOTAL CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA oi ol 0 Traffic Engineering Speed Survey Street Surveyed NEWLAND STREET Between WARNER AVE TO IMIL AVE pate Surveyed 5/16/17 Time Surveyed 3:30 PM to 3:55 PM 85th % 47 6 4 Pace 38 - 47 M.P.H. 9 8 % In Pace 76% 10 10 VI Of Vehicles 100 8 5 !Posted Speed Limit 45 M.P.H. 5 6 Few Speed Limit 45 MPH. iAccident Rate(Acc/MVM). 0.83 State Rate= 3,35 performed By DS 1 5 2 2 2 41 5 4 5 3 dl 4 6 61 4 6 51 3 5 4 1 2 3 2 4 2 Approved: City Of Huntington Beach Date; Robert Stachelski, Transportation Manager O 01 0 0 R.T.E. 1651 0 • 0 • 0 1 0 o 0 0 0! 01 0 0 0 Remarks 0 0 0 0 OH 01 0 # of Lanes [ I Two [ I Three [ X ] Four [I Six Other Median [ J Raised IX] Painted [ ] Painted Center Line Bike Lanes [ ] Yes [XI No Grading [ X Flat [ I Sloped [ ] OCFCD Channel Parking [ X ] Yes [J No Land Use [ ] Commercial [ ] Industrial [ X ] Residential Complete section below to certify a copy of this original survey. This document is a correct copy of the original in the PW Dept. Date Sign Title City of Huntington Beach CA Public Works Department HB -226-Item 6. - 200 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA Traffic Engineering Speed Survey Street Surveyed PARKSIDE LANE EDINGER AVE TO HOLT DR 4/27/17 0:10 AM to 10:45 AM 29 M.P. 21 - 30 M.P.H. 89% 100 25 MPH, 25 M.P.H. ccident Rate(Acc/MVM)= 3,80 State Rate----- 3.05 Approved: City Of Huntington Beach Date: Robert Stachelski, Transportation Manager R.T.E, 1651 Remarks The street fronts commercial areas along the north portion with full access driveways and related cross it traffic. Frontage along the south half of the street are 9 multifamily residential units along both sides, and a 5 elementary school with pedestrian activity including 4 children. The accident rate is higher than average for a 1 similar facility. To facilitate the safe and orderly flow of traffic that is reasonable and prudent a 5 mph reduction is applied for a posted speed limit of 25 mph. # of Lanes [ X ] Two I ] Three [ ] Four [1 Six Other Median [ ] Raised [ ] Painted [ X ] Painted Center Line Bike Lanes [I Yes [ X ] No Grading [ X] Flat [ ] Sloped [ ] OCFCD Channel Complete section below to certify a copy of this original survey. This document is a correct copy of the original in the PW Dept. Parking [ X ] Yes [] No Date Sign Title Land Use 1] Commercial [ industrial [ X] Residential City of Huntington Beach CA Public Works Department HB -227-Item 6. - 201 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA Traffic Engineering Speed Survey Street Surveyed PLAZA LANE TOTAL Between WARNER AVE TO HEIL AVE Date Surveyed 4/11117 ime Surveyed 1:45 PM to 2:30 PM g5th % 27 M.P. 0 race 21 - 30 M.P.H. 0 II% In Pace 95% 0 IP Of Vehicles 102 0 Posted Speed Limit 25 M.P.H. 0 !New Speed Limit 25 M.P.H, Accident Rate(AcctNIVM)= 1.10 State Rate= 3.05 Performed By DS Approved: City Of Huntington Beach Date: Robert Stachetslci, Transportation Manager R.T.E. 1651 emarks 0 # of Lanes [XI Two [ ] Three [ ] Four [ ] Six Other Median [ ] Raised [ ] Painted [ X ] Painted Center Line Complete section below to certify a copy of this original survey. Bike Lanes [I Yes [XI No This document is a correct copy of the original in the PW Dept, Grading [ X 1 Flat [ 1 Sloped [ OCFCD Channel Parking [ X ] Yes f ] No Date Sign Title Land Use [1 Commercial [ 1 Industrial [ X ] Residential City of Huntington Beach CA Public Works Department HB -228-Item 6. - 202 Accident Rate(Acc/MVM)= 0.00 State Rate= Robert Stachelski, Transportation Manager R.T.E. 1651 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA Traffic Engineering Speed Survey Pace 32-41 MPH. % In Pace 65 % # Of Vehicles 133 Posted. Speed Limit 45 M.P.H. Remarks # of Lanes Median Bike Lanes Grading Parking Land Use [ ] Two [ Three [Xl Four [ I Six Other [ ] Raised [ X ] Painted [ ] Painted Center Line Complete section below to certify a copy of this original survey. [ X I Yes [ ] No This document is a correct copy of the original in the PW Dept. [ X Flat [I Sloped [ OCFCD Channel II Yes [XI No Date Sign Title [I Commercial [I Industrial [ X ] Residential City of Huntington Beach CA Public Works Department HB -229-Item 6. - 203 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 'V 40 .42 44 46 48 50 52 DATE: 4/512017 TIME: 15:00-16:00 Speed mph <=10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach Location: Slater Ave Bet. Graham St & Edwards St Posted Speed: 45 MPH Project #: 17-1073-056 Eastbound Spot Speeds 54 j 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 0 0 2 4 6 2 4 6 Number of Vehicles Number of Vehicles SPEED PARAMETERS Class Count Range 60th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace of / # Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 68 26-53 36 mph 43 mph 31 - 40 46 68% 8% /6 24% /16 HB -230-Item 6. - 204 Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach Location: Slater Ave Bet. Graham St & Edwards St Posted Speed: 45 MPH Posted Speed: 45 MPH Project #: 17-1073-056 Project #: 17-1073-056 Westbound Spot Speeds 0 6 Number of Vehicles 0. 42 -0 40 a) DATE: 41512017 TIME: 15:00-16:00 Speed mph <=10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 5 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 ALL Vehicles 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 =3 a_ 2 38 (0 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 SPEED PARAMETERS Class Count Range 60th Percentile 86th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace %/# Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 65 28 - 54 38 mph 44 mph 33 - 42 43 66% 12% /8 22% 114 HB -231-Item 6. - 205 <=10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 68 67 68 69 >=70 10 ... ...... Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach DATE: 41512017 TIME: 15:00-16:00 Location: Slater Ave Bet. Graham St & Edwards St Posted Speed: 45 MPH Project #: 17-1073-056 Speed mph ALL Vehicles Eastbound & Westbound Spot Speeds 0 5 10 15 Number of Vehicles SPEED PARA1VIETERS Class Count Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent Pace in % / # Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 133 26 - 54 37 mph 44 mph 32 - 41 _ 87 65% 11% 115 24% /31 HB -232-Item 6. - 206 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA Traffic Engineering Speed Survey New Speed Limit 45 M.P.H. Accident Rate(ACC/MVM)= 0.62 State Rate= Performed By NDS Approved: City Of Huntington Beach Date: Robert Stachelski, Transportation Manager R.T.E. 1651 3.35 40-49 M.P.H. % In Pace 71 % it Of Vehicles Posted Speed Limit 130 45 M.P.H. Remarks Along the east portion of the street segment, numerous full access driveways exist on the south side including access to an active park, and several cross streets along the north side with residential cross traffic. School crossing on the west portion of the street segment. Adjacent streets posted 45 mph based on an engineering survey. These conditions may not be readily apparent, therefore, a 5 mph reduction is applied which is reasonable to facilitate the safe and orderly flow of traffic, [ ] Two [ ] Three [XI Four [ ] Six Other # of Lanes Median [ 1 Raised [ X ] Painted Bike Lanes [XI Yes [ No Complete section below to certify a copy of this original survey. This document is a correct copy of the original in the PW Dept. [ ] Painted Center Line Grading Parking Land Use [XI Flat [ X ] Sloped [1 OCFCD Channel [ ] Yes [X] No [XI Commercial [ ] Industrial [ X ] Residential Date Sign Title I City of Huntington Beach CA Public Works Department HB -233-Item 6. - 207 Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach Location: Slater Ave Bet. Edwards St & Gothard St Posted Speed: 45 MPH Project #: 17-1073-057 Eastbound Spot Speeds tll 0_ 42 (/) 44 46 48 50 52 54 r: 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 Speed mph <=10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 26 26 27 28 29 30 ALL Vehicles 31 32 33 34 1 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 1 1 1 3 2 3 3 4 6 6 5 6 5 6 6 3 1 3 1 1 DATE: 4112/2017 TIME: 09:00-09:45 >=70 0 2 4 6 Number of Vehicles SPEED PARAMETERS Class count Range 60th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % /# Below Pace % /# Above Pace ALL 63 31 -54 45 mph 49 mph - 40 - 49 _ 45 71% 14% 19 15% 19 HB -234-Item 6. - 208 0 2 4 Number of Vehicles SPEED PARAMETERS Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach Location: Slater Ave Bet. Edwards St & Gothard St Posted Speed: 45 MPH Project #:17-1073-057 Westbound Spot Speeds 12 _I 14 16 18 20 J 22 _I 24 _I 26 28 30 32 34 3 2 38 -o 40 (I) 42 (J) 44 46 48 50 52 _ 54 _ 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 Class Count Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % 1# Below Pace % I # Above Pace ALL 67 33 - 60 44 mph _ 49 mph 38 - 47 42 63% 10% /7 27% 118 DATE: 4/12/2017 TIME: 09:00-09:45 Speed I ALL Vehicles mph <=10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 1 2 2 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 6 4 4 6 4 4 4 2 1 1 1 1 HB -235-Item 6. - 209 Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach Location: Slater Ave Bet. Edwards St & Gothard St Posted Speed: 45 MPH Project #: 17-1073-057 Eastbound & Westbound Spot Speeds 10 12 14 16 38 40 42 44 46 Speed - MPH 48 _ 50 52 i 5 10 Number of Vehicles 56 58 60 62 64 66 88 70 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 1 32 33 34 35 3 36 3 37 3 38 7 39 6 40 7 41 7 42 8 43 9 44 10 45 9 46 9 47 10 48 9 49 50 7 51 3 62 4 63 2 54 1 55 1 56 57 58 59 60 1 DATE: 4/12/2017 TIME: 09:00-09:45 Speed mph <=10 ALL Vehicles 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 15 SPEED PARAMETERS Class Count Range 50th Percentile B5th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent Pace in % / # Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 130 31 - 60 44 mph 49 mph 40 - 49 87 67% 18% /24 15% 119 HB -236-Item 6. - 210 Pace 37-46 M.P.H. Vo In Pace 77 'Yo #1 Of Vehicles 107 Posted Speed Limit 40 MPH. Accident Rate(Acc/MVIVI)= 1.29 State Rate— Approved: City Of Huntington Beach Date: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA Traffic Engineering Speed Survey Remarks The street segment is adjacent to industrial and residential uses with numerous driveway locations and intersecting streets, and a two-way left turn lane resulting in significant cross traffic, including heavy truck traffic. These conditions may not be readily apparent and a 5 mph reduction is applied for facilitating the safe and orderly flow of traffic. # of Lanes Median Bike Lanes Grading Parking [ ] Two [1 Three [ X ] Four [ ] Six Other [ ] Raised [ X ] Painted [ 1 Painted Center Line [XI Yes [ ] No [X1 Flat [ ] Sloped [ ] OCFCD Channel [ ] Yes [XI No Complete section below to certify a copy of this original survey. This document is a correct copy of the original in the PW Dept Date Sign Title Land Use [ X ] Commercial [ X ] Industrial [ X ] Residential City of Huntington Beach CA Public Works Department HB -237-Item 6. - 211 Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach DATE: 417/2017 TIME: 13:00-13:25 Location: Slater Ave Bet. Gothard St & Beach Blvd Posted Speed: 40 MPH Project #: 17-1073-058 Eastbound Spot Speeds 0 2 4 6 8 10 Number of Vehicles SPEED PARAMETERS Class Count Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % I 0 Below Pace % I it Above Pace ALL 52 25 - 55 40 mph 47 mph 37 - 46 36 59% — 15% / 8 16% / 8 HB -238-Item 6. - 212 <=.10 •1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 0 Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach DATE: 41712017 Location: Slater Ave Bet. Gothard St & Beach Blvd TIME: 13:00-13:25 Posted Speed: 40 MPH Project #: 17-1073-058 Westbound Spot Speeds Speed mph ALL Vehicles 4 10 Number of Vehicles SPEED PARAMETERS Class Count Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % / # Below Pace °A I # Above Pace ALL 55 30- 50 41 mph 46 mph 36 - 45 41 75% 9% 15 17% 19 HB -239-Item 6. - 213 DATE: 41712017 TIME: 13:00-13:25 Speed mph <=10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 26 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 16 Speed - MPH Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach Location: Slater Ave Bet. Gothard St & Beach Blvd Posted Speed: 40 MPH Project #: 17-1073-058 Eastbound & Westbound Spot Speeds 0 5 10 15 20 Number of Vehicles SPEED PARAMETERS Class Count Range 60th Percentile 86th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent Pace in % / # Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 107 25 - 55 40 mph 46 mph 37 - 46 77 72% 14% /15 16% /15 HB -240-Item 6. - 214 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA Traffic Engineering Speed Survey etween BEACH BLVD TO NEWLAND ST ate Surveyed 4/27/17 Time Surveyed 11:05 AM to 11:35 AM 45 MPH. 37 - 46 M.P.H. osted Speed Limit ew Speed Limit M.P.H. Accident Rate(Acc/MVM)= 1.60 State Rate- erformed By Approved: City Of Huntington Beach Date: Robert Stachelski, Transportation Manager R.T.E. 1651 emarks The segment fronts commercial arid residential land uses. The westerly portion has closely spaced and numerous frill access driveways to commercial properties, along with driveways directly accessing residential properties. At one residential property the garage is located immediately behind the driveway on the south side. The segment also fronts an elementary school along the eastern portion with a pedestrian signalized crosswalk. These conditions may not be readily apparent to drivers, therefore, the posted speed is reduced by 5 mph to facilitate the safe and orderly movement of traffic. # of Lanes [ ] Two [ ] Three [ X ] Four [ ] Six Other Median [ ] Raised [ X I Painted [ I Painted Center Line Complete section below to certify a copy of this original survey. Bike Lanes [ X I Yes [ ] No This document is a correct copy of the original in the PW Dept. Grading [Xi Flat [ ] Sloped [ ] OCFCD Channel Parking [1 Yes [ X I No Date Sign Title Land Use [ X] Commercial [ ] Industrial [ X ] Residential City of Huntington Beach CA Public Works Department HB -241-Item 6. - 215 NB SB MPH 60 59 58 57 56 55 4 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 9 38 37 36 35 34 3 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 I:: 18 17 16 15 14 3 12 2 6 7 7 5 6 5 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 0 0 0 Traffic Engineering Speed Survey Street Surveyed SPRINGDALE STREET [Between SOUTH CITY LIMO' TO SLATER A Pate Surveyed 5/2/17 [rime Surveyed 9:00 AM to 10:04 AM 5th % 47 KPH. 1 2 1 3 3 2 3 5 Pace 40 - 49 M.P.H. 4 6 4 10 5 7 5 12 % In Pace 83% 6 7 6 13 4 5 4 9 Of Vehicles 102 5 6 5 11 4 5 4 9 Posted Speed Limit 45 M.P.H. 4 5 4 9 2 2 2 4 New Speed Limit 45 M.P.H. Accident Rate(Acc/MVM)= 0.24 State Rate-- Accident Rate(Acc/MVM)= 0.24 State Rate-- 3.35 3.35 perfonned By perfonned By DS DS Approved: City Of Huntington Beach Date: Robert Stathelski, Transportation Manager Robert Stathelski, Transportation Manager 0 R.T.E. 1651 0 0 0 R.T.E. 1651 0 0 0 Remarks 0 Remarks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 # of Lanes # of Lanes [ X ] Two [ 1 Three [ ] Four [ ] Six Other [ X ] Two [ 1 Three [ ] Four [ ] Six Other Complete section below to certify a copy of this original survey. Median [ ] Raised [XI Painted [ 1 Painted Center Line Complete section below to certify a copy of this original survey. Median [ ] Raised [XI Painted [ 1 Painted Center Line Bike Lanes I) Yes IXI No Bike Lanes I) Yes IXI No This document is a correct copy of lhe original in the PW Dept. This document is a correct copy of lhe original in the PW Dept. Grading [ X ] Flat [ 1 Sloped [1 OCFCD Channel Grading [ X ] Flat [ 1 Sloped [1 OCFCD Channel Parking [ X ] Yes [I No Date Sign Title Parking [ X ] Yes [I No Date Sign Title Land Use [ 1 Commercial [ 1 Industrial [ X ] Residential City of Huntington Beach CA Public Works Department Land Use [ 1 Commercial [ 1 Industrial [ X ] Residential City of Huntington Beach CA Public Works Department HB -242-Item 6. - 216 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 611 Traffic Engineering Speed Survey # of Lanes [J Two [ ] Three [ X ] Four [ ] Six Other Median [ ] Raised [ X ] Painted [ I Painted Center Line Complete section below to certify a copy of this original survey. Bike Lanes [] Yes [ X 1 No Grading [ X ] Flat [ 1 Sloped [ ] OCFCD Channel Parking [ X ] Yes [] No Date Sign Title Land Use [ X ] Commercial [ ] industrial [ X] Residential City of Huntington Beach CA Public Works Department This document is a correct copy of the original in the PW Dept. HB -243-Item 6. - 217 Pace 36-45 M.PE. % In Pace 80 % # Of Vehicles 113 Posted Speed Limit 45 MPH. Accident Rate(AcdMVM)= 1.36 State Rate= 3.35 NDS Approved: City Of Huntington Beach Date: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA Traffic Engineering Speed Survey Remarks [Complete section below to certify a copy of this original survey. [ No This document is a correct copy of the original in the PW Dept. [ I Sloped [ ] OCFCD Channel H Date Sign Title Land Use [ XI Commercial [ ] Industrial [XI Residential City of Huntington Beach CA Public Works Department # of Lanes Median Bike Lanes [ X ] Yes Grading [XI Flat Parking [ X ] Yes ] Two [ ] Three [ XI Four [ 1 Six Other [ X] Raised [ Painted [ ] Painted Center Line HB -244-Item 6. - 218 Northbound Spot Speeds 10 12 _1 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 66 67 68 69 >=70 "0 40 a) cu 0_ 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 2 Number of Vehicles 0 4 ALL Vehicles Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach DATE: 41512017 Location: Springdale St Bet. Warner Ave & Heil Ave TIME: 13:10-14:00 Posted Speed: 45 MPH Project #:11-1073-061 6 SPEED PARAMETERS Class Count Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % / # Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 56 32 - 51 41 mph 47 mph 38 - 47 40 71% 19% /11 9% I 5 HB -245-Item 6. - 219 Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach DATE: 41512017 TIME: 13:10-14:00 Location: Springdale St Bet. Warner Ave & Heil Ave Posted Speed: 45 MPH Project #: 17-1073-061 Southbound Spot Speeds 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 32 36 2 38 8 -0 40 a) eL 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 _I 64 66 68 70 0 2 4 Number of Vehicles SPEED PARAMETERS Class Count Range 60th Percentile 86th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent Pace In % / # Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 57 30-48 39 mph 44 mph 33 - 42 42 74% 5% /3 22% /12 HB -246-Item 6. - 220 DATE: 415/2017 TIME: 13:10-14:00 Speed mph <=10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 ALL Vehicles 39 • 10 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach Location: Springdale St Bet. Warner Ave & Heil Ave Posted Speed: 45 MPH Project #: 17-1073-061 Northbound & Southbound Spot Speeds 32' 34 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 44 46 48 r:72 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 0 10 15 Number of Vehicles SPEED PARAMETERS Class Count Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % /4 Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 113 30 - 51 40 mph 45 mph 36 - 45 80 71% 17% /20 12% /13 HB -247-Item 6. - 221 Pace 35-44 M.P.H. % In Pace 72 % Of Vehicles Posted Speed Limit 106 45 MPH. j: Accident Rate(Acc/MVM)= 1.02 State Rate= 3.35 Performed By NDS Approved: City Of Huntington Beach Date: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA Traffic Engineering Speed Survey # of Lanes [ ] Two [ ] Three [ X ] Four [ ] Six Other Med ian [ ] Raised [ X 1 Painted [ ] Painted Center Line Complete section below to certify a copy of this original survey. Bike Lanes [ X ] Yes [ ] No This document is a correct copy of the original in the PW Dept Grading [XI Fiat [ ] Sloped II OCFCD Channel Parking [Xi Yes [ No Date Sign Title Land Use [ X ] Commercial [ ] Industrial [ X ] Residential City of Huntington Beach CA Public Works Department HB -248-Item 6. - 222 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 2 38 _ -o 40 0, 42 (1) - 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 1 DATE: 413/2017 TIME: 15:15-16:00 A.14,jVehicles Speed mph <,-10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach Location: Springdale St set. Heil Ave & Edinger Ave Posted Speed: 45 MPH Project #: 17-1073-062 Northbound Spot Speeds 0 2 4 6 8 Number of Vehicles SPEED PARAMETERS Class Count Range SOth Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent Pace in 7 % / # Below Pace % I # Above Pace ALL 75 35 - 54 42 mph 49 mph 35 - 44 49 65% 0% /0 - 35% /26 HB -249-Item 6. - 223 Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach Location: Springdale St Bet. Heil Ave & Edinger Ave Posted Speed: 45 MPH Project #: 17-1073-062 Southbound Spot Speeds 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 M 38 44 46 48 50 DATE: 4/312017 TIME: 15:15-16:00 Speed mph ALL Vehicles <=10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 52 j 52 52 j 53 54 j 54 54 j 54 55 56 _ 56 56 _ 56 57 58 58 58 58 59 60 60 60 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 2 4 6 8 10 Number of Vehicles SPEED PARAMETERS Class Count Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % I # Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 73 32 - 50 40 mph 44 mph _ 34 - 43 57 78% 4% 13 18% / 13 62 64 66 68 70 0 HB -250-Item 6. - 224 Speed mph 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 13 10 12 11 38 "0 40 a) 0_ 42 (/) 44 46 48 50 52 64 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach DATE: 41312017 TIME: 15:15-16:00 Location: Springdale St Bet. Heil Ave & Edinger Ave Posted Speed: 45 MPH Project #: 17-1073-062 Northbound & Southbound Spot Speeds <=10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 46 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 61 62 63 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 3 5 10 15 Number of Vehicles SPEED PARAMETERS Class Count Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace %! # Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 148 32-54 41 mph 47 mph 35-44 106 72% 4% /6 25% /36 HB -251-Item 6. - 225 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA Traffic Engineering Speed Survey Of Vehicles 103 lAccident Rate(Acc/MVM). 0.48 State Rate-- Approved: City Of Huntington Beach Robert Stachelski, Transportation Manager R.T.E. 1651 0 # of Lanes Median Bike Lanes Grading Parking Land Use [ ] Two [ ] Three [ X ] Four [ ) Six Other [ ] Raised [ X) Painted [ ] Painted Center Line Complete section below to certify a copy of this original survey. [XI Yes [ ] No This document is a correct copy of the original in the PW Dept. [ X ] Flat [ ] Sloped [ ] OCFCD Channel [ ] Yes [ X ] No Date Sign Title [I Commercial [] Industrial [ X ] Residential City of Huntington Beach CA Public Works Department HB -252-Item 6. - 226 44 V Of Vehicles 102 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA Traffic Engineering Speed Survey 49 48 Pace 37 - 46 M.P. 47 46 In Pace 78% 45 43 14 Posted Speed Limit 40 M.P.H. 10 Few Speed Limit 40 M.P.H. Accident Rate(Acc/MVM)= 0.72 State Rate-- 3_35 Performed By DS Approved: City Of Huntington Beach 3 Date: Robert Stachelski, Transportation Manager 0 0 R.T.E. 1651 0 0 0 Remarks Several intersecting residential streets have limited sight distance due to the roadway design with horizontal curves along the street segment. Due to these conditions a posted speed limit of 45 mph would not be prudent and result in unsafe operating conditions because of the visibility limitations. A 5 mph reduction is applied to facilitate the safe and orderly flow of traffic for a posted speed limit of 40 mph. 0I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 # of Lanes Median Bike Lanes Grading Parking Land Use [ X ] Two [ ] Three [ ] Four [ ] Six Other [ I Raised [ 1 Painted [ X ] Painted Center Line Complete section below to certify a copy of this original survey. [ ] Yes [ X ] No This document is a correct copy of the original in the PW Dept X 1 Flat [ ] Sloped [ ] OCFCD Channel j X Yes [] No Date Sign Title [ ] Commercial [ Industrial [ X j Residential City of Huntington Beach CA Public Works Department HB -253-Item 6. - 227 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA Traffic Engineering Speed Survey Street Surveyed TALBERT AVENUE Accident Rate(Acc/MVM)= 0.00 State Rate= Robert Stachelski, Transportation Manager R.T.E. 1651 # of Lanes [ X ] Two [ J Three [ ] Four [1 Six Other Median [ Raised [ ] Painted [ X I Painted Center Line Bike Lanes [ ] Yes [XI No Grading [X] Flat [ Sloped [ ] OCFCD Channel Parking [ 1 Yes [ X ] No Land Use [ I Commercial [ X ] Industrial [I Residential !Complete section below to certify a copy of this original survey. This document is a correct copy of the original in the PW Dept. Date Sign Title City of Huntington Beach CA Public Works Department HB -254-Item 6. - 228 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA Traffic Engineering Speed Survey # of Lanes [ ] Two [ ] Three [ X ] Four [1 Six Other Median [ ] Raised [ X ] Painted [ ] Painted Center Line Complete section below to certify a copy of this original survey. Bike Lanes [ X] Yes [ ] No This document is a correct copy of the original in the PW Dept. Grading [ X ] Flat [ X ] Sloped [ ] OCFCD Channel Parking [ X ] Yes [I No Date Sign Title Land Use [ X I Commercial [ X ] Industrial [ X ] Residential City of Huntington Beach CA Public Works Department HB -255-Item 6. - 229 Time Surveyed 85th % Pace % to Pace If Of Vehicles Posted Speed Limit New Speed Limit 37-46 M.P.H. 72 % 107 45 M.P.H. 45 M.P.H. Accident Rate(Acc/MVM). 0.86 State Rate= Performed By NESS Approved: City Of Huntington Beach Date: Robert Stachelski, Transportation Manager R.T.E. 1651 3.35 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA Traffic Engineering Speed Survey Remarks # of Lanes Median Bike Lanes Grading Parking Land Use [ ] Two [ ] Three [ X ] Four [ I Six Other [ X ] Raised [ X ] Painted [ ] Painted Center Line Complete section below to certify a copy of this original survey. [ ] Yes X] No This document is a correct copy of the original in the PW Dept. [ X ] Flat [ ] Sloped [ ] OCFCD Channel [ X ] Yes [] No Date Sign Title [ X ] Commercial [ X ] Industrial I X ] Residential City of Huntington Beach CA Public Works Department HB -256-Item 6. - 230 DATE: 41712017 TIME: 11:30-11:55 ALL Vehicles 2 3 3 1 4 2 5 5 5 4 4 3 1 3 2 2 1 1 1 50 51 52 53 54 56 56 Speed mph <=10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach Location: Talbert Ave Bet. Beach Blvd & Newland St Posted Speed: 46 MPH Project #: 17-1073-065 Eastbound Spot Speeds 10 12 14 ! 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 0_ 38 -0 40 a) 0, 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 62 64 64 66 66 68 68 70 70 0 2 4 6 0 2 4 6 Number of Vehicles Number of Vehicles SPEED PARAMETERS Class Count Range 50th Percentile nth Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent Pace in % / # Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 53 31 -55 39 mph 45 mph 32 - 41 36 68% 3% 12 29% / 15 HB -257-Item 6. - 231 6 8 10 0 2 4 Number of Vehicles Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach Location: Talbert Ave Bet. Beach Blvd & Newland St Posted Speed: 45 MPH Project #: 17-1073-065 Westbound Spot Speeds 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 3 38 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 SPEED PARAMETERS Class Count Range 80th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % I # Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 54 31 -52 42 mph 45 mph 37 - 46 44 81% 12% / 7 6% / 3 DATE: 4/7/2017 TIME: 11:30-11:55 ALL Vehicles 1 2 1 3 2 6 6 4 3 8 6 3 3 6 1 1 Speed mph <=10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 HB -258-Item 6. - 232 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 Number of Vehicles 0 36 38 -0 40 a) CL 42 Cf) 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach Location: Talbert Ave Bet. Beach Blvd & Newland St Posted Speed: 45 MPH Project #: 17A073-065 Eastbound & Westbound Spot Speeds 10 16 DATE: 4/7/2017 TIME: 11:30-11:56 Speed mph <=10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 26 26 27 28 29 30 ALL Vehicles 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 3 3 6 1 6 6 7 10 10 8 7 11 7 4 6 7 1 2 1 2 1 >=70 SPEED PARAMETERS Class Count Range 60th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % / # Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 107 31 -55 40 mph 45 mph 37 -46 _ 77 72% 20% 122 8% 18 HB -259-Item 6. - 233 21 1 21 2 2 21 3 2 4 4 5 1 6 5 1 1 5 5 1 2 61 10 6 51 5 5 41 51 4 Street Surveyed WARD STREET Between YORKTOWN AVE TO GARFIELD AVE Date Surveyed Time Surveyed 85th % 3 4 Pace 5/12/17 10;45 AM to 11:15 AM 45 M.P.H. 37 - 46 M.P.H. 82% 105 45 M.P. 45 IvLP:11, 5 8 YolnPace 6 47 Of Vehicles 7 16 osted Speed Limit 10 9 New Speed Limit 3.05 Accident Rate(Acc/MVIVI)= 0.31 State Rate= Performed By DS TOTAL CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 0 0 0 Traffic Engineering Speed Survey Date: Robert Staehelslci, Transportation Manager R.T.E. 1651 0 # of Lanes [ X ] Two [ X ] Three [ ] Four [ ] Six Other Median [ I Raised [ X ] Painted [ ] Painted Center Line !Complete section below to certify a copy of this original survey. Bike Lanes [ X ] Yes [ ] No This document is a correct copy of the original in the PW Dept Grading [ X ] Flat [ ] Sloped [ ] OCFCD Channel Parking IX ] Yes [ ] No Date Sign Title Land Use [ ] Commercial [ ] Industrial [ X ] Residential City of Huntington Beach CA Public Works Department MPH 60 59 NB SB 13 12 11 10 58 7 56 5 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 95 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 7 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 8 17 16 15 4 2 41 6 5 21 10 i 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Approved: City Of Huntington Beach HB -260-Item 6. - 234 Time Surveyed 85th % Pace % In Pace # Of Vehicles Posted Speed Limit New Speed Limit Accident Rate(Acc/MVM). 0.38 4049 M,P,H, 76 % 127 45 M.P.H. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA Traffic Engineering Speed Survey Remarks Several full access driveways are located along the north side of the segment to residential and marina parking areas with associated cross traffic. Active bicycle and pedestrian street segment to and from coastal access areas. Majority of the south side unimproved. Adjacent street segment posted 45 mph with high frequency of recent fatal accidents, Due to these conditions a 5 mph reduction is applied for a posted speed limit of 45 mph to facilitate the safe and orderly flow of traffic. # of Lanes Median Bike Lanes Grading Parking Land Use [ ] Two [ ] Three [ X ] Four [ ] Six Other [ ] Raised I X] Painted [ ] Painted Center Line Complete section below to certify a copy of this original survey. [ X ] Yes [ ] No This document is a correct copy of the original in the PW Dept. LX] Flat [1 Sloped [ ] OCFCD Channel [ ] Yes [XI No Date Sign Title [ ] Commercial [ ] Industrial IX] Residential City of Huntington Beach CA Public Works Department HB -261-Item 6. - 235 DATE: 41512017 TIME: 10:00-10:55 Speed mph <=10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 ALL Vehicles 38 2 39 3 40 2 41 4 42 6 43 6 44 6 45 4 46 6 47 7 48 4 49 4 50 3 51 1 Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach Location: Warner Ave Bet. Pacific Coast Hwy & Algonquin St Posted Speed: 50 MPH Project #: 17-1073-066 Eastbound Spot Speeds 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 _1 34 a_ 2 38 -a 40 a) CL 42 (1) 44 46 48 50 , 52 1 52 E 52 1 52 E 53 54 54 54 54 55 56 56 56 56 57 58 58 58 58 59 60 60 60 60 61 62 62 62 62 63 64 64 64 64 65 66 66 66 66 67 68 68 68 68 69 >=70 70 0 2 4 6 Number of Vehicles SPEED PARAMETERS Class Count Range 50th Percentile 86th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent Pace in % / # Below Pace % 1 # Above Pace ALL 56 38 - 52 45 mph _ 49 mph 41 -50 47 84% 12% 17 4% /2 HB -262-Item 6. - 236 Speed mph <=10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 ALL Vehicles DATE: 415/2017 TIME: 10:00-10:55 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 38 -0 40 a) a) O. 42 (/) 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 1 2 2 4 6 6 6 7 4 5 4 4 6 5 4 3 2 55 56 56 56 56 57 58 58 58 58 59 60 60 60 60 61 62 62 62 62 63 64 64 64 64 65 66 66 66 66 67 68 68 68 68 69 70 >=70 70 >=70 Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach Location: Warner Ave Bet. Pacific Coast Hwy & Algonquin St Posted Speed: 50 MPH Project #: 17-1073-066 Westbound Spot Speeds 0 2 4 6 8 Number of Vehicles SPEED PARAMETERS Class Count Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent Pace In % / # Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 71 36 - 53 44 mph 50 mph 40 - 49 51 72% 12% 1 9 16% 111 HB -263-Item 6. - 237 DATE: 4/512017 TIME: 10:00-10:55 Speed mph <=10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 ALL Vehicles 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 57 68 69 4 2 4 7 7 10 11 12 10 9 11 9 7 4 3 2 Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach Location: Warner Ave Bet. Pacific Coast Hwy & Algonquin St Posted Speed: 50 MPH Project #: 17-1073-066 Eastbound & Westbound Spot Speeds 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 25 30 32 34 15 46 0 5 Number of Vehicles 10 SPEED PARAMETERS Class Count Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent Pace in % / # Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 127 36 - 53 44 mph 49 mph 40 - 49 H 97 76% 11% 114 13% /18 HB -264-Item 6. - 238 Pace 37-46 M.P.H. % In Pace 66 % Of Vehicles 102 Posted Speed Limit 45 M.P.H. Accident Rate(Acc/MVM)= 0.94 State Rate — Approved: City Of Huntington Beach Date: Robert Stachelski, Transportation Manager R.T.E. 1651 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA Traffic Engineering Speed Survey # of Lanes [ ] Two [ 1 Three I] Four [ X ] Six Other Median [ X ] Raised [ X ] Painted [ ] Painted Center Line Bike Lanes [ X ] Yes [ 1 No Complete section below to certify a copy of this original survey. This document is a correct copy of the original in the PW Dept. Grading Parking Land Use [ X] Flat [ ] Sloped [1 OCFCD Channel [ 1 Yes [ X ] No Date Sign Title [ X I Commercial [1 Industrial [ X I Residential City of Huntington Beach CA Public Works Department HB -265-Item 6. - 239 Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach Location: Warner Ave Bet. Goldenwest St & Beach Blvd Posted Speed: 45 MPH Posted Speed: 45 MPH Project #: 17-1073-067 Project #: 17-1073-067 Eastbound Spot Speeds 2 4 Number of Vehicles 0 6 8 >=70 70 DATE: 417/2017 TIME: 09:47-10:29 Speed mph <=10 •1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 • ALL Vehicles 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 2 38 -a 40 a) a) c. 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 SPEED PARAMETERS Class Count Range 50th Percentile 86th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent Pace in % / # Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 51 28 - 51 42 mph 46 mph 37 - 46 37 73% 17% /9 10% /5 , HB -266-Item 6. - 240 DATE: 41712017 TIME: 09:47-10:29 Speed mph <=10, 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 ALL Vehicles Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach Location: Warner Ave Bet. Goldenwest St & Beach Blvd Posted Speed: 45 MPH Project #: 17-1073-067 Westbound Spot Speeds 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 - 28 30 32 46 48 50 52 J 54 J 56 J 58 60 62 _ 64 J 66 J 68 70 2 6 Number of Vehicles SPEED PARAMETERS Class Count Range 60th Percentile 86th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % / # Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 51 27 - 50 40 mph 45 mph 38 - 47 31 61% 33% 117 6% 13 HB -267-Item 6. - 241 DATE: 4/7/2017 TIME: 09:47-10:29 Speed mph 1 35 39 12 10 <=10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 31 32 33 34 37 38 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >-,70 Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach Location: Warner Ave Bet. Goldenwest St & Beach Blvd Posted Speed: 45 MPH Project #: 17-1073-067 Eastbound & Westbound Spot Speeds 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 Speed - MPH 48 1— 50 52 54 _1 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 0 6 10 15 Number of Vehicles SPEED PARAMETERS Class Count Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent Pace in % / # Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 102 27 - 51 41 mph 45 mph 37 - 46 67 66% 23% /24 11% /11 HB -268-Item 6. - 242 Accident Rate(Acc/MVM)= 0.40 State Rate= ; Performed By NDS Approved: City Of Huntington Beach Date: Robert Stachelski, Transportation Manager R.T.E. 1651 2.40 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA Traffic Engineering Speed Survey Pace 36-45 MPH. (..% In Pace 65 % 6 Of Vehicles Posted Speed Limit New Speed Limit 101 45 M.P.H. 45 MP.H, # of Lanes Median Bike Lanes Grading Parking Land Use [ ] Two [ ] Three [ ] Four I X j Six Other [ X ] Raised I] Painted [ ] Painted Center Line Complete section below to certify a copy of this original survey. [ X ] Yes [ ] No This document is a correct copy of the original in the PW Dept. [ X ] Flat [ ] Sloped [ ] OCFCD Channel ] Yes [ X ] No Date Sign Title [ X ] Commercial II Industrial [ X ] Residential City of Huntington Beach CA Public Works Department HB -269-Item 6. - 243 DATE: 41712017 TIME: 14:49-15:32 Location: Warner Ave Bet. Beach Blvd & Magnolia St Posted Speed: 45 MPH Project #: 17-1073-068 Eastbound Spot Speeds ALL Vehicles 10 12 1 14 16 20 _1 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 46 48 50 52 54 4 6 2 Number of Vehicles 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 0 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 SPEED PARAMETERS Class Count Range 60th Percentile 86th Percentile 10 MPH Pace 0 In Pace Percent Pace in % / # Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 61 30 - 54 42 mph 47 mph 39 - 48 35 69% 25% / 13 6% 13 Speed mph <=10 11 12 13 14 15 16 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 HB -270-Item 6. - 244 Speed mph ALL Vehicles . 46 48 54 52 54 66 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 6 8 2 4 Number of Vehicles <=10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 64 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 SPEED PARAMETERS Class ALL Count 50 Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile - 47 mph 10 MPH Pace 36 -45 4 in Pace 33 Percent in Pace 66% % I 4 Below Pace 16% 18 % / //Above Pace 18% /9 29-51 41 mph 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 2 38 Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach DATE: 4/7/2017 TIME: 14:49-15:32 Location: Warner Ave Bet. Beach Blvd & Magnolia St Posted Speed: 45 MPH Project #: 17-1073-068 Westbound Spot Speeds HB -271-Item 6. - 245 Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach DATE: 4/712017 Location: Warner Ave Bet. Beach Blvd & Magnolia St TIME: 14:49-15:32 Posted Speed: 45 MPH Project #: 17-1073-068 Speed mph ALL Vehicles Eastbound & Westbound Spot Speeds 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 38 40 42 44 E2 46 J 48 50 E 5 10 15 Number of Vehicles SPEED PARAMETERS Class Count Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # In Pace Percent Pace in % / # Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 101 29 - 54 42 mph 47 mph 36 - 45 68 65% 13% /14 21% /21 <=10 11 12 13 14 15_ 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 .;=70 11 10 Speed - MPH HB -272-Item 6. - 246 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA Traffic Engineering Speed Survey On street parking with the associated parking movements exist along the north side of the eastern portion of the segment. Numerous closely spaced full access commercial and residential driveways are located along he west portion of the segment with resulting crossing affic. These conditions may not be readily apparent. A vertical curve along this segment limits visibility of intersecting streets. Adjacent streets posted 40 mph. Due to these conditions a reduction of 5 mph is applied which is reasonable and prudent to facilitate the orderly flow of traffic. # of Lanes [ I Two [ ] Three [ X ] Four [ ] Six Other Median [ ] Raised [ X ] Painted [ 1 Painted Center Line Complete section below to certify a copy of this original survey. Bike Lanes [ X ] Yes [ 1 No This document is a correct copy of the original in the PW Dept. Grading [ X ] Flat [ X ] Sloped II OCFCD Channel Parking [ X ] Yes ] No Date Sign Title Land Use [ X ] Commercial [1 Industrial [ X] Residential City of Huntington Beach CA Public Works Department HB -273-Item 6. - 247 Street Surveyed Between Date Surveyed Time Surveyed YORKTOWN AVENUE 85th % Accident Rate(Acc/MVIVI)=. 0.51 State Rate-= Performed By NDS Approved: City Of Huntington Beach Date: Robert Stachelski, Transportation Manager R.T.E. 1651 3.35 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA Traffic Engineering Speed Survey Pace 37-46 MPH. %In Pace 78 % S Of Vehicles 103 Posted Speed Limit 40 M.P.H. New Speed Limit 40 M.P.H, Remarks Several intersecting streets within this street segment have design speed sight distance limitations. Two uncontrolled school area crosswalks exist within the segment with pedestrian activity. These conditions may not be readily apparent to drivers. A 5 mph reduction is applied as a reasonable and effective speed to facilitate the safe and orderly movement of traffic within this street segment for posted speed limit of 40 mph. # of Lanes Median Bike Lanes Grading Parking Land Use [ ] Two [ Three [ X Four [ 1 Six Other [ j Raised [ X ] Painted [ ] Painted Center Line Complete section below to certify a copy of this original survey.j [ X ] Yes [ I No This document is a correct copy of the original in the PW Dept. [ X ] Flat [ ] Sloped [ ] OCFCD Channel [ Yes [XI No Date Sign Title [1 Commercial [ ] Industrial [ X ] Residential City of Huntington Beach CA Public Works Department HB -274-Item 6. - 248 Eastbound Spot Speeds Speed mph ALL Vehicles <=10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 • t Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach Location: Yorktown Ave Bet, Newland St & Bushard St Posted Speed: 40 MPH Project #: 17-1073-070 DATE: 4/1112017 TIME: 13:15-13:31 10 12 J 14 _I 16 _j 18 _I 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 o_ 2 38 _ 2 4 6 8 10 Number of Vehicles SPEED PARAMETERS Class Count Rarige 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % 1# Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 51 27 - 53 . 43 mph 46 mph 38 - 47 , 41 80% 11% 16 8% 14 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 0 HB -275-Item 6. - 249 Speed mph ALL Vehicles <-,10 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 17 18 19 11 12 13 14 15 16 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 .1 30 32 34 ".•..7 3 0_ 38 Spot Speed Study Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach City of Huntington Beach DATE: 4111(2017 DATE: 4111(2017 Location: Yorktown Ave Bet. Newland St & Bus hard St Location: Yorktown Ave Bet. Newland St & Bus hard St TIME: 13:15-13:31 Posted Speed: 40 MPH TIME: 13:15-13:31 Posted Speed: 40 MPH Project #: 17-1073-070 Project #: 17-1073-070 Westbound Spot Speeds 39 40 D 40 40 D 40 a) 41 a) 41 CD_ 42 42 CD_ 42 42 43 44 44 44 44 45 45 46 46 46 46 47 48 48 48 48 49 50 50 50 50 51 52 52 52 52 53 54 54 54 54 55 56 56 56 56 57 58 58 58 58 59 66 60 66 60 61 62 62 62 62 63 64 64 64 64 65 66 _1 66 66 _1 66 67 68 _1 68 68 _1 68 69 70 >=70 70 >=70 0 4 6 8 10 Number of Vehicles SPEED PARAMETERS Class Count Range 50th Percentile 86th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % / # Below Pace % I # Above Pace ALL 52 30 - 48 39 mph 44 mph 36 - 45 40 77% 19% /10 4% /2 HB -276-Item 6. - 250 Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services City of Huntington Beach DATE: 4111/2017 TIME: 13:15-13:31 Location: Yorktown Ave Bet. Newland St & Bus hard St Posted Speed: 40 MPH Project #: 17-1073-070 Eastbound & Westbound Spot Speeds 0 10 15 Number of Vehicles SPEED PARAMETERS Class Count Rang_e 60th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent Pace in % / # Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 103 27- 53 40 mph 45 mph 37 - 46 80 78% 16% / 17 6% / 6 HB -277-Item 6. - 251 o Traffic Engineering Speed Survey Street Surveyed YORKTOWN AVENUE BUSHARD ST TO WARD ST 9:30 AM to 10:00 AM 46 M.P.H. Between Time Surveyed 85th % pate Surveyed 5/16/17 11 7 New Speed Limit 45 M.P.H. 41 40 6 4 Accident Rate(Acc/MVM).= 0.42 State Rate= 3.35 Approved: City Of Huntington Beach MPH EB WB TOTAL CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 49 0 0 48 Pace 37 - 46 M,P,H, 47 2 21 3 46 3 8 8 11 % In Pace 84% 45 4 6 4 10 6 5 6 3 6 4 5 4 11 I# Of Vehicles 9 [Posted Speed Limit 104 45 MYR 44 5 43 6 42 5 performed By DS Date: Robert Stachelski, Transportation Manager R.T.E. 1651 0 0 27 0 0 0 Remarks # of Lanes Median Bike Lanes Grading Parking Land Use [ ] Two [ Three IX] Four [ ] Six Other [ ] Raised [ X ] Painted [ Painted Center Line [ X ] Yes [] No IX] Flat [ Sloped [ I OCFCD Channel [J Yes [ X ] No [ X ] Commercial [ I Industrial [ X ] Residential IComplete section below to certify a copy of this original survey. This document is a correct copy of the original in the PW Dept. Date Sign Title 1 City of Huntington Beach CA Public Works Department HB -278-Item 6. - 252 Dept. ID PW 17-048 Page 1 of 2 Meeting Date: 9/18/2017 Statement of Issue: Section 14.54.060 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code (HBMC) requires the City Council to establish sewer service charges by ordinance. Chapter 14.55 of the HBMC establishes the formula for modifying the charges and codifies an annual increase based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI) increase available in July. The Sewer Service Charge Annual Performance Audit is presented to the City Council as required by HBMC Section 14.54.070. Financial Impact: Sewer Service Fund (511) revenue for Fiscal Year 2017-18 is estimated at $11,101,250 if the CPI adjustment is made to the Sewer Service Charge. Recommended Action: A) Accept the Sewer Service Fund Performance Audit for Fiscal Year 2016-17; and, B) Approve for introduction Ordinance No. 4140, “An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach Amending Chapter 14.55 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code Relating to the Sewer Service Rates Methodology.” (Five affirmative votes are required to adopt this ordinance per Health and Safety Code Section 5471). Alternative Action(s): 1. Do not accept the Sewer Service Fund Performance Audit and direct staff to make specific modifications. 2. Do not adopt Ordinance No. 4140 and suspend the Sewer Service Charge adjustment. 3. Reduce the Sewer Service Charge by a specific percentage. Analysis: The Sewer Service Fund is designated solely for facilities and resources relating to the rehabilitation, replacement, repair and maintenance of City-owned sewers and lift-stations. This is CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR. CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 9/18/2017 SUBMITTED TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members SUBMITTED BY: Fred A. Wilson, City Manager PREPARED BY: Travis K. Hopkins, PE, Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Public Hearing to Consider Accepting the Sewer Service Fund Performance Audit for Fiscal Year 2016-17 and Approve for Introduction Ordinance No. 4140 amending Chapter 14.55 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code (HBMC) relating to Sewer Service Rates Methodology 9/18/2017 Approved for Introduction - Vote: 6-1 (O'Connell - No) HB -279-Item 7. - 1 Dept. ID PW 17-048 Page 2 of 2 Meeting Date: 9/18/2017 in accordance with California Health and Safety Code Section 5470, and is included as Chapter 14.54 in the HBMC. Section 14.54.070 Annual Program Review of the HBMC requires an annual review and performance audit of the Sewer Service Fund by the Public Works Commission. The audit was presented to the Commission at the July 19, 2017 meeting. Per the aforementioned section of the Municipal Code, “the City Council shall receive, at a regularly scheduled meeting, the recommendations of the Public Works Commission concerning fees, rates and charges proposed to be modified or added to the Sewer Service User Charge.” In accordance with Section 14.55.030 Annual CPIU Adjustments, each Sewer Service User Charge shall be adjusted to reflect the annual percentage adjustment in the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers (CPIU) in Los Angeles, Orange and Riverside Counties established by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, available as of July 1, 2017. The CPIU reflects an annual increase of 2.5%. In 2014, the City Council adopted the Sewer Service Fund Reserve Policy. The Reserve Policy requires that $8.25 million be available at the end of the current fiscal year. At this time, the reserves at the end of the current fiscal year are projected to be $18.5 million. However, the City still needs to replace 11 aging sewer lift stations. The current design and construction cost estimate for the replacement of these stations in today’s dollars is approximately $30 million. Additionally, sewer lines in some areas of the City have experienced significant issues with calcification. Calcification is costly to remove and the extent of this issue is not yet known. If not addressed, calcification can lead to the reduction in flow capacity of sewer lines and increase the potential of sanitary sewer overflows. The sewer lateral program has seen an increased demand over the last two fiscal years. Sewer lateral repairs have increased from 285 in 2015 to 319 in 2016 and are on pace for around 350 this year. Although current demand is about half of the FY 2008/09 demand when the program was introduced, it is possible that these expenses will continue to increase. A rate analysis on both water and sewer rates is currently underway. A recommendation to modify rates will be made when the analysis is complete. If Ordinance No. 4140 is adopted, the rate adjustment would go into effect on October 18, 2017. Environmental Status: Not Applicable Public Works Commission Action The Public Works Commission voted 3-1 to recommend to the City Council to approve the Performance Audit and retain the programmed 2.5 percent rate adjustment at their July 19, 2017 regular meeting. Strategic Plan Goal: Enhance and maintain infrastructure. Attachment(s): 1. Annual Sewer Service Fund Performance Audit for Fiscal Year 2016-17 2. Ordinance No. 4140, “An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach Amending Chapter 14.55 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code Relating to the Sewer Service Rates Methodology” 3. PowerPoint Presentation HB -280-Item 7. - 2 July 2017 - 1 - City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department Sewer Service Fund Performance Audit Review of Fiscal Year 2016/17 Updated 9/13/2017 Introduction On September 4, 2001, the Huntington Beach City Council adopted a Sewer Service User Charge and created the Sewer Service Fund. The Sewer Service Fund revenue is designated solely for the rehabilitation, replacement, repair and maintenance of City- owned sewers and lift stations. This is in accordance with the California Health and Safety Code Section 5470, and is included in the ordinance that adds Chapter 14.54 to the Huntington Beach Municipal Code. The ordinance established the Huntington Beach Public Works Commission as both the oversight committee and the final appeals board. The Sewer Service Fund shall be subject to an annual review and performance audit by the Public Works Commission. The information presented in this report complies with Section 14.54.070 Annual Program Review. In addition, the City Council shall receive, at a regularly scheduled meeting, the recommendations of the Public Works Commission concerning fees, rates and charges proposed to be modified or added to the sewer service user charge. A public hearing on proposed charges will be held annually in conjunction with the City’s annual budget process and hearing. Program Overview Scheduled maintenance projects and minor emergency repairs will be completed within the allotted budget. Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) Inspection and cleaning of sewer mains. Operations and maintenance of the City’s 27 sewer lift stations. Capital improvements including lift station design and construction work and the sewer lining program. A Sewer Lateral Program was added effective January 3, 2008, and the sewer service charge was adjusted to cover the projected expenses. The program transferred the responsibility to the City for sewer lateral repairs within the City- owned right-of-way. Initially, the cost of the program exceeded the additional revenue generated by the adjustment to the sewer service user charge. Costs for this program have decreased significantly since its inception. HB -281-Item 7. - 3 July 2017 - 2 - The City Council adopted a reserve policy for enterprise funds in FY 14/15. The reserve policy for the Sewer Service Funds states that the City will maintain a reserve equal to the sum of the following: o Operations and Maintenance: Thirty-three percent (33%) of the adopted annual budget to ensure adequate working capital for operating expenses. This amount is $2.6 million. o Capital Improvement Program (CIP): One-hundred percent (100%) of the average annual planned Capital Improvement Program for the following five years. This amount is $2.65 million. o Emergency: an amount equal to the estimated cost, as determined by the City Engineer, to replace one sewer lift station. This amount is $3.0 million. o The total reserve would amount to $8.25 million. The Municipal Code states that the Consumer Price Index for Urban Consumers (CPIU) in Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside Counties established by the Bureau of Labor Statistics that is available July 1 shall be used to calculate adjustments to sewer service rates. Review of Fiscal Year 2016/17 Personnel and operating expenditures account for approximately seventy percent (70%) of the Fiscal Year 2016/17 Sewer Service Fund budget and are directed toward preventative and routine maintenance. The budget includes salaries and benefits, sewer line maintenance, CCTV pipeline and lateral inspection, lift station services, manhole upgrades, the sewer lateral program and cost allocation charges to the City’s General Fund. The balance of the expense budget is earmarked for capital equipment replacement and capital projects, including slip lining, pipeline rehabilitation, and lift station replacement. In general, the Sewer Maintenance Section of the Utilities Division expends the operating and equipment replacement budgets, and the Engineering Division is responsible for the implementation of capital projects. Sewer Lining: A $350,000 11,339 linear feet sewer lining project was completed this year. Sewer Lift Station: Design of the Edgewater Sewer Lift Station was completed with construction to occur in FY 2017/18. Maintenance Activities: Totals for various maintenance activities are presented below. CCTV Inspection: The sewer system is inspected through the use of Closed Circuit Television inspection. A contractor was employed during this last fiscal year to video inspect portions of the sewer system’s main collection lines located in the City’s HB -282-Item 7. - 4 July 2017 - 3 - arterial and high traffic volume streets. City crews video inspect the sewer mains located in residential areas and low traffic volume streets. Sewer Line Maintenance Routine cleaning of 1,562,410 linear feet of sewer pipe. Removal of 4,651 pounds of debris/grit during routine cleaning. Cleaned 225 enhanced cleaning areas (areas of sewer line cleaned from two times to twelve times per year) for a total of 521,210 linear feet through June. The Fats, Oils and Grease (FOG) program has cleaned 11,458 linear feet of sewer line around food service establishments and other areas with high grease concentrations. Applied root control to 26,250 linear feet of sewer line. Sewer lateral repair program received and resolved 352 requests for repair to date. Inspected via Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) 164,528 linear feet of residential sewer lines and arterial mains. Lined 976 linear feet 15-inch sanitary sewer on Warner Avenue from Marina View Pl. to Algonquin St. Manhole Maintenance Cleaned and inspected 8,856 manholes. Repaired and recoated 28 manholes. Sprayed insecticide for roaches in 224 manholes. Sewer Lift Station Maintenance Inspected 27 lift stations three times a week and cleaned each station every two months. Cleaned and inspected the 56 check valves at the sewer lift stations every two months. Replaced 3 check valves. Replaced 2 gate valves. Disassembled and rebuilt 15 sewer pumps. Cleaned 51 sewer lift station wet wells. Replaced 5 motors. Emergency Response 0 Public Sanitary Sewer Overflows (SSO) to date, 16 Private Lateral Spill discharges to date. 281 service requests from the public during business hours. 62 after hours lift station alarms and failures. 120 after hours call outs for miscellaneous sewer related problems. 17 emergency sewer line point repairs. HB -283-Item 7. - 5 July 2017 - 4 - Sewer Lateral Program Under the Sewer Lateral Program, the City assumed responsibility for the repair of all sewer laterals from the City-owned sewer main through the public right-of-way to the private property line. The property owner remains responsible for all costs of repair and maintenance of that portion of the sewer lateral on private property. This program is response driven as all work orders are generated in response to calls from residents and businesses. Expenditures on the Sewer Lateral Program have decreased significantly since the program was initiated in Fiscal Year 2008/09. Staff had previously budgeted for the Sewer Lateral Program based on the expenditures in the first two years of the program. However, following reductions in calls after the first three fiscal years of the program, staff reduced the budget. Demand had leveled off from 2011/12 to 2014/15, but has seen an uptick the last two fiscal years. $0 $500,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000 $2,500,000 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 Sewer Lateral Expenditures HB -284-Item 7. - 6 July 2017 - 5 - FY 2016/17 Projected Expenditures Personnel Original Budget Revised Budget* Projected Salaries, Permanent $2,198,299 $2,198,299 $1,659,290 Salaries, Temporary $55,450 $55,450 $33,960 Salaries, Overtime $82,500 $82,500 $110,512 Benefits $1,189,954 $1,189,954 $1,032,685 Total Personnel $3,526,203 $3,526,203 $2,836,437 Operating Utilities $110,000 $110,000 $108,000 Equipment and Supplies $348,350 $448,389 $221,000 Repairs and Maintenance $1,621,000 $1,648,615 $1,726,468 Conferences and Training $4,000 $4,000 $9,300 Professional Services $260,000 $902,244 $196,880 Rental Expense $3,500 $3,500 $6,000 Interdepartmental Charges $1,670,961 $1,670,961 $1,670,961 Expense Allowance $5,800 $5,800 $5,800 Total Operating $4,023,611 $4,793,509 $3,944,409 Capital Equipment $0 $470 $470 Vehicles $0 $200,181 $200,181 Total Capital $0 $200,651 $200,651 CIP Improvements $1,520,000 $4,134,493 $666,121 Total CIP $1,520,000 $4,134,493 $666,121 Total $9,069,814 $12,654,856 $7,647,618 *Revised Budget includes funds carried over from prior fiscal year HB -285-Item 7. - 7 July 2017 - 6 - FY 2016/17 Projected Revenues Source FY 15/16 FY 16/17 Actual Projected Customer Charges $10,846,356 $10,831,455 Interest $161,566 $166,850 Other $435,120 $17,394 Total $11,433,032 $11,015,699 Projected FY 2016/17 Fund Balance Beginning Balance 10/1/2016 $22,047,153 Projected Revenues FY 16/17 $11,015,699 Proposed Expenditures FY 16/17 ($7,647,618) Estimated GASB Adjustment ($6,886,667) Projected End Balance 9/30/2017 $18,528,567 Proposed FY 2017/18 Budget Sewer Service User Charge Adjustments In accordance with Section 14.55.030 Annual CPIU Adjustments, each Sewer Service User Charge shall be adjusted to reflect the annual percentage adjustment in Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers (CPIU) in Los Angeles, Orange and Riverside Counties established by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and available as of July 1 of each year. The purpose for annual adjustment of the rates is to ensure that the revenues continue to fully fund the needs of the program. To accommodate the billing system, all service charge rates are calculated to four decimal places, and charged on a daily factor. The daily factor converts the monthly charge based on a 365-day year. This is a modification from the initially adopted rate schedule. The customer’s bill reflects a charge based on the number of days between meter readings. A resolution was adopted by the City Council to authorize the daily rate methodology. HB -286-Item 7. - 8 July 2017 - 7 - The percentage adjustment in the CPIU available as of July 1, 2017 for the month of May reflects an annual increase of 2.5%. This percentage adjustment is included as the recommended adjustment to the Sewer Service User Charge effective October 1, 2017. The following table shows the 2.5% increase. For purposes of comparison, the rates represent a monthly charge. Effect of CPI Adjustment on Current Sewer Service Charge Current With CPI Increase Customer Category Charge Type Unit Charge Residential: Single-family & townhouses with individual meters Flat rate for all customers in category per unit per month $10.6923 $10.9596 Apartment: All apartments, mobile homes and townhouses served by common meters Flat rate for all customers in category per unit per month $8.8693 $9.0910 Regular Commercial/Industrial: Most businesses, including private schools Flat rate amount per Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU). EDU refers to either (1) the capacity of a customer’s water meter in comparison to a standard ¾ inch meter, or (2) the number of tenant units that receive water service through the water meter, whichever is greater per EDU per month $12.4089 $12.7191 High-Consumption Commercial/Industrial: Businesses with high water consumption relative to their meter size Flat rate per hundred cubic feet (CCF) of estimated sewer discharge per CCF per year $2.3219 $2.3799 Public Schools: All public K-8 and high school districts with schools in the City Flat rate per student per year with a different rate per student for K-8 and for high schools High School per ADA per year $3.4150 $3.5004 ADA - Average Daily Attendance K-8 per ADA per year $2.1991 $2.2541 HB -287-Item 7. - 9 July 2017 - 8 - FY 2017/18 Proposed Budget Personnel Salaries, Permanent $2,113,968 Salaries, Temporary $45,000 Regular Overtime $100,000 Benefits $1,339,318 Total Personnel $3,598,286 Operating Utilities $130,800 Supplies $324,200 Repairs and Maintenance $1,690,000 Conferences and Training $21,500 Professional Services $250,000 Rental Expense $5,000 Cost Allocation $1,721,100 Auto Allowance $5,800 Total Operating $4,148,400 CIP (new) Lift Station (Slater) $1,000,000 Sewer Lining $500,000 Residential Zone Maintenance $30,000 Total CIP $1,530,000 TOTAL $9,276,686 FY 2017/18 Proposed Revenue Customer Charges $10,916,250 Interest $150,000 Other $35,000 Total $11,101,250 HB -288-Item 7. - 10 July 2017 - 9 - FY 2017/18 Projected Fund Balance Projected Beginning Balance 10/1/2017 $18,528,567* Projected Revenues FY 17/18 $11,101,250 Proposed Expenditures FY 17/18 ($9,276,686) Anticipated Carry-Over Expenses ($3,268,958) Projected End Balance 9/30/2018 $17,084,173 FY 2017/18 Capital Projects Lift Stations: Construction is budgeted for the Slater Lift Station in Spring 2018. Sewer Lining: Sewer lining in the amount of $500,000 is programmed in FY 2017/18. A lining project is bid once a sufficient number of sewer defects are identified as part of the CCTV inspection program. *Includes estimated $6,887,667 GASB adjustment. HB -289-Item 7. - 11 ORDINANCE NO. 4140 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING CHAPTER 14.55 OF THE HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE SEWER SERVICE RATES METHODOLOGY WHEREAS, Huntington Beach Municipal Code Section 14.55.010 provides that each year the sewer service user charge may increase based upon a consumer price index. The following rates reflect said increase. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1. Section 14.55.020 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 14.55.020 Rates, Charges and Billing Methodology Water customers shall be charged a sewer service user charge at the following rates, as set forth below, based upon sewer charge customer category and cha .ge type. Customer Category Charge Type Unit Charge Residential - Single-family and townhouses with individual meters Flat rate for all customers in category Per unit per month $10.9596 Apartment - All apartments, mobile homes, and townhouses served by common meters Flat rate for all customers in category Per unit per month $9.0910 Regular Commercial/Industrial: Most businesses, including private schools Flat rate amount per Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU). EDU refers to either (1) the capacity of a customer's water meter in comparison to a standard 3/4 inch meter, or (2) the number of tenant units that receive water service through the water meter, whichever is greater Per EDU per month $12.7191 17-5964/163808/my 1 HB -290-Item 7. - 12 ORDINANCE NO. 4140 Customer Categoiy Charge Type Unit Charge High-Consumption Commercial/Industrial: Businesses with high water consumption relative to their meter size Flat rate per hundred cubic feet of estimated sewer discharge Per CCF per year $2.3799 Public Schools - All public K-8 and high school districts with schools in the City Flat rate per student per year, with a different rate per student for K-8 and for high schools. High School: per ADA per year. $3.5004 ADA - Average Daily Attendance K-8: per ADA per year $2.2541 SECTION 2. This Ordinance shall become effective 30 days after its adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of , 2017 Mayor REVIEWED AND APPROVED: / INITIATED AND PPROVED: City Manager C----Director of Publi Works 17-5964/163808/my 2 ATTEST: City Clerk HB -291-Item 7. - 13 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT HBMC Section 14.55.020 14.55.020 Rates, Charges and Billing Methodology Water customers shall be charged a sewer service user charge at the following rates, as set forth below, based upon sewer charge customer category and charge type. Customer Category Charge Type Unit Charge Residential - Single-family Flat rate for all customers Per unit per $10.692310,9596 and townhouses with individual meters in category month Apartment - All Flat rate for all customers Per unit per $8.86939,0910 apartments, mobile homes, and townhouses served by common meters in category month Regular Flat rate amount per Per EDU per $12.108912,7191 Commercial/Industrial: Equivalent Dwelling Unit month Most businesses, including private schools (EDU). EDU refers to either (1) the capacity of a customer's water meter in comparison to a standard 3/4 inch meter, or (2) the number of tenant units that receive water service through the water meter, whichever is greater High-Consumption Flat rate per hundred Per I4CCF per $2.32192 3799 Commercial/Industrial: Businesses with high water consumption relative to their meter size cubic feet of estimated sewer discharge year Public Schools - All public Flat rate per student per High School: per $374-1403,5004 K-8 and high school districts with schools in the City year, with a different rate per student for K-8 and for high schools. ADA per year ADA - Average Daily $2.19912,2541 Attendance K-8: per ADA per year (3505-10/01, 3570-10/02, 3614-10/03, 3658-09/04, 3720-09/05, 3794-1/08, 3814-10/08, 3840- 10/09, 3890-10/10, 4074-12/15) 17 -59641163836/mv HB -292-Item 7. - 14 City of Huntington Beach City Council Meeting September 18, 2017 1HB -293-Item 7. - 15 Introduction Sewer Service Charge adopted September 2001 Sewer Service Fund designated for operation, maintenance & capital rehabilitation Public Works Commission identified as the Public Works Commission identified as the oversight committee Annual program review is required City Council annual hearing to accept the Performance Audit and to accept programmed rates 2HB -294-Item 7. - 16 FY 16/17 Maintenance Activities 352 sewer lateral responses 1,562,410 linear feet of sewer line cleaned Inspected via Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) 164,528 linear feet of residential sewer lines and arterial mains.sewer lines and arterial mains. 27 lift stations inspected 3 times/week and cleaned every two months 27 sewer wet wells cleaned Zero public sanitary sewer overflows to date (7/1) 3HB -295-Item 7. - 17 FY 16-17 CIP Project Status Design of Edgewater Lift Station completed. A $350,000 (11,339 linear feet) sewer lining project was completed.lining project was completed. Design of Slater Lift Station started. Council awarded $4,001,361 construction contract for Edgewater Lift Station 4HB -296-Item 7. - 18 Reserve Policy Operations and Maintenance: 33% of annual budget, $2.6 million Capital Improvement Program: Average of 5-year Capital Improvement Program, of 5-year Capital Improvement Program, $2.65 million Emergency: Estimated cost to replace a sewer lift station, $3.0 million Total: $8.25 million 5HB -297-Item 7. - 19 Fiscal Year 2017-18 Budget Overview Personnel $3,598,286 Operations $4,148,400 Capital $1,530,000 Subtotal $9,276,686 Projected Carryover $3,268,958 Total Budgeted Expenditures $12,545,644 Proposed Revenue $11,101,250 6HB -298-Item 7. - 20 Proposed FY 17-18 Budget Budget continues current service levels Projected Carryover of $3.3 million for Construction of Edgewater Lift Station $500,000 for Sewer Lining Project$500,000 for Sewer Lining Project Construction of Slater Lift Station Begin Design of Saybrook Lift Station 7HB -299-Item 7. - 21 Fund Balance Summary Beginning Balance 10/1/16 $22,047,153 Projected Revenues 16/17 $11,015,699 Projected Expenditures1 16/17 ($14,534,285) Projected Balance 10/1/17 $18,528,567Projected Balance 10/1/17 $18,528,567 Proposed Revenues 17/18 $ 11,101,250 Proposed Expenditures2 17/18 ($12,545,644) Projected Balance 10/1/18 $17,084,173 Note 1. Includes $6.9M GASB Adjustment Note 2. Includes $3.3M Projected Carryover 8HB -300-Item 7. - 22 Proposed Sewer Charges -Rate modification based on CPIU available as of July 1 is +2.5%2.5%2.5%2.5% Category Current + 2.5% Single Family (per month)$10.69 $10.96 Multi-Family (per unit/month)$ 8.87 $ 9.09 Commercial/ Industrial (per month)$12.41 $12.72 9HB -301-Item 7. - 23 Proposed Sewer Charges Category Current + 2.5% High Consumption Commercial/Industrial $2.32 $2.38 (Per 100 Cubic Feet of Water) Schools (per ADA/year)Schools (per ADA/year) High School $3.42 $3.50 K-8 $2.20 $2.25 10HB -302-Item 7. - 24 Recommended Action 1.Accept Sewer Service Fund Performance Audit 2.Recommend Council introduce Ordinance No. 4140 to adopt the programmed 2.5% Sewer Service programmed 2.5% Sewer Service Charge increase of all sewer rates 3.Continue to monitor the revenue requirements of the sewer lateral program, calcification issues and sewer lift station replacements 11HB -303-Item 7. - 25 September 18, 2017 12HB -304-Item 7. - 26 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATION TO: VIA: FROM: DATE: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Fred A. Wilson, City Manager Travis K. Hopkins, PE, Director ofrUblic Works September 5, 2017 SUBJECT: Supplemental Communication - City Council Agenda September 5, 2017 — Item /t 12 Request for Continuance Staff recommends continuing item 11 12: Public Hearing to Consider Accepting the Sewer Service Fund Performance Audit for Fiscal Year 2016-17 and Approve for Introduction Ordinance No. 4140 amending Chapter 14.55 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code relating to Sewer Service Rates Methodology, to the September 18, 2017. TKH:klw HB -305-Item 7. - 27 Dept. ID FD17 009 Page 1 of 2 Meeting Date: 10/2/2017 Statement of Issue: City Council Resolution 2390 designates the Fire Department as the department authorized to select names for new streets within the City. However, this authority does not extend to the renaming of existing streets. The attached resolution rescinds the Resolution 2390 and provides authority for naming new streets and processing street name change requests to the Fire Department. This action is needed in order to process a request from property owners in the Huntington Harbour Village Community, who have requested assignment of street names to the existing properties at this location. The units within the community are currently addressed as 16400 Saybrook Lane, Units 1 through 130. Financial Impact: The Huntington Harbour Village Community submitted the non-refundable fee of $161 per street (total $1,288) as required in City Specification #409 for processing the street name assignments. This fee is also consistent with the most recently City Council approved fee schedule. If approved, the applicant would also pay for any required street name signs. There would be no financial impact to the City. Recommended Action: A) Adopt Resolution Number 2017-34, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Designating the Fire Department as the Agency Authorized to Select Names for New Streets and Street Name Changes Within the City;” and, B) Adopt Resolution Number 2017-47, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Revising the Names of Existing Streets in Huntington Harbour Village Mobile Home Park.“ Alternative Action(s): Do not adopt the attached Resolution and instruct City staff regarding the request for street name assignments in Huntington Harbour Village. Analysis: City of Huntington Beach Resolution 2390 authorizes the Fire Department to select street names for new streets within the City and make recommendations to the City Council for approval. This resolution, which was adopted in 1966, does not specify authority for processing street name CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR. CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 10/2/2017 SUBMITTED TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members SUBMITTED BY: Fred A. Wilson, City Manager PREPARED BY: David A. Segura, Fire Chief SUBJECT: Adopt Resolution No. 2017-34 authorizing the Fire Department to have authority for processing street name change requests and adopt Resolution No. 2017-47 approving street name assignments for Huntington Harbour Village HB -306-Item 8. - 1 Dept. ID FD17 009 Page 2 of 2 Meeting Date: 10/2/2017 changes. The attached resolution (Attachment 1) would rescind Resolution 2390 and provide authority for the Fire Department to name new streets and process street name change requests. Final approval for both new street names and street name changes would remain with the City Council. A Home owners association (HOA) representative for Huntington Harbour Village requested to assign street names to their community instead of using one communal address with multiple unit numbers. The community is located at 16400 Saybrook Lane. City Specification #409 (Attachment 2) requires that 75% of the property owners within the community need to be in favor of the street name change. The applicant provided the appropriate documentation showing that 101 out of the 130 property owners (77%) are in favor of the street name change. The Fire Department has circulated the request to the necessary City departments and government agencies for feedback and no negative impacts in providing services to this location were identified. Staff is now submitting the official request for the street name assignments to the City Council for approval. City Specification # 409 requires that a public hearing be conducted regarding any street naming in Huntington Beach, whether on public or private property. Public Hearing Notices were published regarding the resolution rescinding Resolution 2390 and the proposed street name assignments (Attachment 3). The resolution includes the proposed street names (Attachment 4). Environmental Status None. Strategic Plan Goal: Maintain and Enhance Public Safety. Attachment(s): 1. Resolution No. 2017-34, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Designating the Fire Department as the Agency Authorized to Select Names for New Streets and Street Name Changes Within the City” 2. City Specification #409 3. Public Hearing Notices 4. Resolution Number 2017-47, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Revising the Names of Existing Streets in Huntington Harbour Village Mobile Home Park“ HB -307-Item 8. - 2 RESOLUTION NO. 2017-34 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH DESIGNATING THE FIRE DEPARTMENT AS THE AGENCY AUTHORIZED TO SELECT NAMES FOR NEW STREETS AND STREET NAME CHANGES WITHIN THE CITY WHEREAS, the Fire Department selects names for new streets and street name changes in the City; and The Fire Department gives final approval to the selection of names for new streets and street name changes, NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby resolve as follows: 1. Resolution No. 2390 is repealed, 2. The Fire Department is hereby designated as the City department responsible to select names for new streets and street name changes within the City. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of October, 2017. Mayor REVIEWED AND APPROVED: City Manager APPROVED AS,--TaORM: 17-6014/165257/RLS 8/11/17/DO HB -308-Item 8. - 3 Huntington eh Fire Depa Street Nadiihij and Address Assignment Process — Public o City Specification rm. 409 On June 20, 1966, Huntington Beach City Council Resolution #2390 was approved stating "whereas the Fire Department gives final street name approval, the Fire Department is sole authority authorized to select street names for new streets within the City." Additionally, on December 21, 1981, Huntington Beach City Council Resolution #5058 established a process and fee for street name change requests. REQUIREMENTS NEW STREETS (Resolution #2390, 1966) 1.1 Plot Plan — The developer shall submit two (2) copies of the development site plan to the Fire Department's Development section with a list of proposed street names. 1.2 Name Submission — The developer shall submit three (3) names that are acceptable, in accordance with the guidelines of this specification, for each street in the proposed development, plus appropriate additional names in case of unknown duplications, etc. All Fees shall be paid at the time of submittal. 1.3 Street Names — Each street name may be no more than two (2) words, not including the suffix. • Each street name shall contain no more than a total of 14 characters. • No duplicate or similar sounding street names shall be permitted. EXAMPLE: Beacon Drive and Beacon Lane or Whitesands Lane and White Sands Drive. • No street names shall run across reporting districts bounded by a major street or arterial highways. 1.4 Suffix • AU north/south streets shall have the suffix of "Lane." • All east/west streets shall have the suffix of "Drive." • All cul-de-sacs or dead-end streets shall have the suffix of "Circle" or "Court." • Arterial highways and major streets running north/south shall have the suffix of "Street." • Arterial highways and major streets running east/west shall have the suffix of "Avenue." NOVEMBER 2009 — REPLACES NOVEMBER 2003 PAGE 1 OF7 SAFMTIFire Prevention Manual\City Specs \City Spec 409.doc HB -309-Item 8. - 4 Street Naming and Address Assignment Process Public or Private CITY SPECIFICATION NO. 409 15 Approval — After reviewing all proposed street names with the Police Department Communication Supervisor, the Fire Department will notify in writing the Planning Department, GIS Section, Public Works Signs and Markings Section, and the developer of all approved street names. 2. STREET NAME CHANGE (Resolution #5058, 1981) 2.1 The applicant shall submit a written request to the Fire Department's Development Section providing three (3) alternative names for each street name change. 2.2 The applicant shall provide a petition supporting the name change signed by 75 percent of the property owners on that street. Petition must have printed names, signatures and respective addresses of each property owner on the list, The signatures must have notary authentication or property records to verify current membership. 2.3 Applicant shall pay a Request for Council Action (RCA) fee, according to the current fee schedule adopted by City Council, payable to the Huntington Beach Fire Department. This payment shall be submitted with the request, and all proposed street name changes must be included. 2.4 The Fire Department circulates the application to the necessary City departments and government agencies for feedback (Exhibit 1). 2.5 The Fire Department prepares an RCA for City Council to adopt a resolution to change the street name(s). 2.6 A public hearing is set and notification is sent to the owners and residents affected by the proposed street renaming. Applicants are notified regarding Huntington Beach City Council decision. Property owners, respective agencies and City departments are then notified if the change is approved (Exhibit 1), 2.7 Upon approval by City Council, the applicant shall pay all of the appropriate fees in accordance with the current adopted City Council fee schedule. When all fees have been paid, the applicant must bring proof of each payment to the Fire Department, who in turn will release the Public Works Transportation Division to install the new sign(s). The fees to be paid after approval are as follows: • Public Works Transportation Department - Fees to produce and install the new street name sign(s). • Building and Safety Department — Fees to update their microfilm records to reflect the change(s). • Any additional fees that may be adopted by City Council. 3. ADDRESS ASSIGNMENT 3.1 After street names for a project are approved by the Fire Department, the applicant shall submit an addressing request to the Planning Department. The NOVEMBER 2009 — REPLACES NOVEMBER 2003 PAGE 2 OF 6 SAFMT\Fire Prevention ManuallCity Specs\City Spec 409.doc HB -310-Item 8. - 5 Street Naming and Address Assignment Process — Public or Pril.f.ate CITY SPECIFICATION NO. 409 request must be accompanied by the required fee, four (4) copies of a fully dimensioned site plan, and one (1) reduced site plan (8% inch x 11 inch). If multiple floors are involved, the same number of floor plans shall be submitted. Contact the Planning Department for the current fee. 3.2 Once the addresses have been assigned by the Planning Department and approved by the Fire Department, Planning Department staff will send notification by mail to the applicant, property owner(s), City departments, utilities and public agencies (Exhibit 1), Any exceptions to the addressing specification will need the approval of the Fire Department. The address assignments will be entered into the City's property database. 3.3 Single Family Residential, Attached/Detached & Town Homes on Individual Lots O One (1) address will be assigned to the single dwellings on each lot. 3.4 Single Tenant Buildings 6 One (1) number will be assigned per building. 3.5 Multi-Tenant Story Buildings • One (1) number will be assigned per building. • One (1) number will be assigned per suite, apartment or condominium within each building, O The numbering sequence will be in accordance with section 3.6 below. • There shall be allowances made in the numbering sequence for future tenant realignment. 3.6 Numbering Sequence O Units on each side of a hallway or back-to-back shall be addressed as follows: o As you face the main entrance, numbering of the suite, apartment or condominium begins with the lowest number at the north/west side and increases in the south/east direction. • Straight-line Construction — Usually left to right; lowest number should be at north/west side and increase in south/east direction. o The addressing convention for each floor level, at or above grade, shall be as follows: o 101, 102, 103, etc. — (1 st floor) O 201, 202, 203, etc. — (2 nd floor) O 301, 302, 303, etc. — (3 1d floor) NOVEMBER 2009 — REPLACES NOVEMBER 2003 PAGE 3 OF 6 SAFM-11Fire Prevention ManuallCity Specs\City Spec 409.doc HB -311-Item 8. - 6 CITY SPECIFICATION Sti.eet Naming and Address Assignment Process — Public or Pr vate NOTE: In every application of addressing, the first number shall be the respective floor designation. • The addressing convention for occupied space on each floor level that is subterranean or below grade shall be as follows: O B101, B102, B103, etc. — (1't floor below grade) O B201, B202, B203, etc. — (2'd floor below grade) O B301, B302, B303, etc. — (3 1d floor below grade) NOTE: In every application of addressing, the first number shall be the respective floor designation. ▪ The addressing convention for each parking garage level that is subterranean or below grade shall be as follows: O P1 — (1 st level below grade) O P2 — (2 nd level below grade) O P3 — (3 rd level below grade) NOTE: In every application of addressing, the first number shall be the respective floor designation. • No letters or % addresses will be assigned on new buildings. On existing buildings, letters may be assigned ONLY with the approval of the Fire Department. 3.7 Non-Structural Facility • Any freestanding electric meters not attached to a structure that require an address by the local utility, such as for landscape irrigation, will be assigned its own unique address. EXAMPLE: A meter in a landscaped parkway would be addressed as 555 1 st Street. 3.8 Address Ranges for a Street • The range of numbers on the street from end-to-end should include allowances for future addressing needs. 3.9 Address Placement • Address numbers shall conform to City Specification 11128, Premise Identification. NOVEMBER 2009 — REPLACES NOVEMBER 2003 PAGE 4 OF 6 SAFMT\Fire Prevention Manual\City SpecslCity Spec 409.doc HB -312-Item 8. - 7 .Street Nam Private ng and Add - ess Assignment Process -- Public APPROVED'.— DuarTe S. Olson, Fire Chief sort, City Administrator CITY SPECIFICATION NO. 409 4. NUMBERING SYSTEM 4.1 City System – Chapter 12.08 O This numbering system applies to the area south of Clay to Pacific Coast Highway; and Beach Boulevard to Goldenwest Street. O Check the pre-addressed book in the Planning Department for old Huntington Beach numbers, as well as the Building and Safety Department records to avoid duplication and to ensure the number to be assigned is in accordance with this City Specification. • New parcels or parcels that have not been pre-addressed shall have an address for each 25 feet of parcel frontage based on two (2) digit difference for each 25 feet. The address usually includes the lot number. EXAMPLE: Lot 25 in Block 304 would be 325 O All larger and newer projects in this area shall use the County numbering system in section 4.2 below. 4.2 County System • Odd numbers will be assigned to all buildings on north and west sides of the street. e Even numbers will be assigned to all buildings on south and east sides of the street • The numbers will run higher to the east or the south. • Ten (10) digits for each 50 feet measured from the centerline of streets. See Public Works Department map for sequence. • Use other maps for reference (i.e., Assessor Parcel Maps, Address Books prepared by the Police Department, Final Tract Maps), which are available in the Planning Department. DATE: 117„ 6 DATE: NOVEMBER 2009 — REPLACES NOVEMBER 2003 SAFMT1Fire Prevention ManuallCity Spec.s \City Spec 409.doc PAGE 5 OF 6 HB -313-Item 8. - 8 CITY SPECIFICATION Street Naming and Address Assignment Process -- Public o Private EXHIBIT 'I 1. A.I.S,U U.S. Postal Service 2. City of Huntington Beach: • Water Department • Public Works Department o Information Systems / GIS • Police Department • Fire Department • City Treasurer o Business License Office • Planning Department 3. Huntington Beach City School District 4. Orange County Assessor's Office 5. Registrar of Voters, Orange County 6. Southern California Edison Company 7. Southern California Gas Company 8. Time Warner Cable Company 9. U.S. Post Office (Atlanta Avenue) 10. U.S. Post Office (Warner Avenue) 11. Verizon NOVEMBER 2009 — REPLACES NOVEMBER 2003 PAGE 6 OF 6 S:\FMT\Fire Prevention ManuallCity Spece\City Spec 409.doc HB -314-Item 8. - 9 PUBLIC HEARING CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Notice of Public Hearing on Designating the Fire Department as the Agency Authorized to Select Names for New Streets and Street Name Changes Within the City of Huntington Beach Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, in the City Council Chambers, Huntington Beach, CA, located at 2000 Main Street, at the hour of 6:00 PM or as soon as possible thereafter, on Monday, 2 nd of October 2017, for the purpose of designating the Fire Department as the agency authorized to select names for new streets and street name changes within the City of Huntington Beach. As specified in City Council Resolution No. 2390, the Fire Department gives final approval to the selection of names for new streets in Huntington Beach. The proposed resolution would add responsibility for processing street name changes within the City and repeal Resolution No. 2390. All interested persons are invited to attend the public hearing to express their opinions for, or against, the designation of the Fire Department as the agency authorized to select names for new streets and street name changes within the City of Huntington Beach with written or oral comments. Written communications to the City Council should be mailed to the Office of the City Clerk at the address below. Further information may be obtained from the Fire Department, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA, 92648-2702 or by telephone (714) 536-5411. The City of Huntington Beach endeavors to accommodate persons of handicapped status in the admission or access to, or treatment or employment in, city programs or activities. The City of Huntington Beach is an equal opportunity employer. Dated: September 21, 2017 September 28, 2017 City of Huntington Beach By: Robin Estanislau, City Clerk 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648-2702 Telephone: (714) 536-5227 http://huntingtonbeachca.gov/hbpbliccomments Published: The Huntington Beach Wave September 21, 28, 2017 HB -315-Item 8. - 10 PUBLIC HEARING CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Notice of Public Hearing on Revision of the Names of Existing Streets in Huntington Harbour Village Mobile Home Park Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, in the City Council Chambers, Huntington Beach, CA, located at 2000 Main Street, at the hour of 6:00 PM or as soon as possible thereafter, on Monday, 2 nd of October 2017, for the purpose of considering revising the names of existing streets in Huntington Harbour Village Mobile Home Park. The residents of the Huntington Harbour Village Mobile Home Park contacted the Fire Department of the City of Huntington Beach to request the revision to the names of existing streets within the mobile home park. Fire Department Specification No. 409 has an established process for the naming of new streets and street name changes within the City of Huntington Beach. The Fire Department has determined that the revision to the existing street names within the park conforms to Fire Department Specification No. 409. The application has been circulated to all necessary City departments and government agencies for feedback and no negative impacts in providing services to this location were identified. All interested persons are invited to attend the public hearing to express their opinions for, or against, the revision of the names of existing streets in Huntington Harbour Village Mobile Home Park with written or oral comments. Written communications to the City Council should be mailed to the Office of the City Clerk at the address below. Further information may be obtained from the Fire Department, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA, 92648-2702 or by telephone (714) 536-5411. The City of Huntington Beach endeavors to accommodate persons of handicapped status in the admission or access to, or treatment or employment in, city programs or activities. The City of Huntington Beach is an equal opportunity employer. Dated: September 21, 2017 September 28, 2017 City of Huntington Beach By: Robin Estanislau, City Clerk 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648-2702 Telephone: (714) 536-5227 http://huntiratonbeachca.gov/hbpbliccomments Published: The Huntington Beach Wave September 21, 28, 2017 HB -316-Item 8. - 11 RESOLUTION NO. 2017-47 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REVISING THE NAMES OF EXISTING STREETS IN HUNTINGTON HARBOUR VILLAGE MOBILE HOME PARK WHEREAS, the residents of the Huntington Harbour Village Mobile Home Park contacted the Fire Department of the City of Huntington Beach to allow the revision to the names of existing streets within the mobile home park; Resolution No. 2017-34 provides that the Fire Department is the City department responsible to select street name changes within the City; Fire Department Specification No. 409 has established a process for the naming of new streets and street name changes within the City; The Fire Department has determined that the revision to the existing street names within the park conforms to Fire Department Specification No. 409, NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby resolve that the names of existing streets in the Huntington Harbour Village Mobile Home Park are revised as set forth in Exhibit A, attached herein and incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth herein. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of October, 2017. Mayor REVIEWED AND APPROVED: City Manager 17-6014/165263/RLS 9/11/17/DO HB -317-Item 8. - 12 Huntington Harbour Village Proposed Street Name Assignment Current Street Address Unit # 16400 Saybrook Lane Units# 1-130 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 New Street 1-10 & 102-106 11-32, 35&36 33, 34, Clubhouse, & 107- 130 37-44 45-57 58-72 73-88 89-101 Napili Lahaina Waimea Haiku Makaha Poipu Kohala Kailua Exhibit A - Page 1 of 2 HB -318-Item 8. - 13 V 119 CIla t/3_1:110 119E121 INSIIICOD28 in j I WELCOME TO HUNTINGTON HARBOUR VILLAGE "11.4141..iiiire".414n iirrisik„ 11,...41.4. Exhibit A Page 2 of 2 HB -319-Item 8. - 14 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Inter-Department Communication Community Development Department TO: VIA: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Honorable Mayor Delgleize and City Councilmembers Fred A. Wilson, City Manager Scott Hess, AICP, Director of Community Develop September 26, 2017 OCTOBER 2, 2017 CITY COUNCIL MEETING - REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE OF VARIANCE NO. 17-003 Item No. 8 on the October 2, 2017 City Council agenda is Appeal of Variance No. 17-003, a request by Joseph Santiago to deviate from several Zoning Code development standards to accommodate the relocation of a historic single family residence. On September 25, 2017, Mr. Santiago filed a request to continue the item to the October 16, 2017 City Council meeting (Attachment No. 1). Recommended Action: Continue Appeal of Variance No. 17-003 to the October 16, 2017 City Council meeting at the applicant's request. Attachment No. 1: Letter and supplemental email communication from Joseph Santiago dated September 25, 2017 xc: Jane James, Planning Manager Chris Wong, Associate Planner GAADMIMAdmLtr120171092617 jjl (Continuance VAR 17-003).docx HB -320-Item 9. - 1 0°7i/thy-vs qInkc56C.: A 9.fv-v)--y-)dp AvAl n)ci ) 11/0/55 iv hi c{)2 fv/ fvfv-ry q-Vijd--Y A vv 3nNus\703 7-3A1 vponn /00-7Q) 5)fIrl-iu,7 3276/:.L-cY)a Yv Arvlag 3nsl -40 D LLQN ?G+-7E{ N) ±SJc —la 71q ni PS3-dvcL3socjic)--d cr3L-Yov-e_Lsifos(10 ja • Qjj Vc_15))--.1 grf-/94 [Vo fv1" N s )01-07-674'k Juaudaimao 1(pnwtvoo Jo iclao /10Z 9Z d3S 03A13038 ')Th/P1)5 Pfz,DPAPPO is r-vii,„/ 0G-302 ikpq 9N)Mv6%! )(I ) t)( WHZ HB -321-Item 9. - 2 From: )oseoh D. Santlau0 To: Wong, Chns Subject: RE: Entitlement Continuance Date: Tuesday, September 26, 2017 3:35:37 AM Hi Chris, thanks for catching that oversite. I would like to continue to October 16, the earlier of the two dates given as options. Sent on a Sprint Samsung Galaxy Note® 3 Original message From: "Wong, Chris" <Chris.Wong@surfcity-hb.org > Date: 09/25/2017 4:01 PM (GMT-08:00) To: joseph santiago <graphicviolencedesn@yahoo.com > Subject: Entitlement Continuance Joe, In your letter, you forgot to mention the specific date you would like to continue the hearing to. Please indicate the specific date, or otherwise indicate you would like to continue the hearing to a date uncertain. Christopher Wong I Associate Planner City of Huntington Beach I Planning Division 714-374-5357 I chris.wong@sutfcity-hb.org HB -322-Item 9. - 3 Dept. ID CD 17-014 Page 1 of 2 Meeting Date: 10/2/2017 Statement of Issue: Transmitted for your consideration is General Plan Amendment (GPA) No. 14-002, which represents a City-initiated comprehensive General Plan Update and was continued from the September 18, 2017, City Council meeting. At the September 18, 2017 City Council meeting, a public hearing on General Plan Amendment No. 14-002 and Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 14-001 was held. The City Council certified Program EIR No. 14-001, adopted the CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations, and continued action on GPA No. 14- 002 with the public hearing closed so the City Attorney could review potential effects of state Senate Bill 35 on the General Plan. The Planning Commission and staff are recommending approval of the General Plan Update (GPA No. 14-002). PLANNING COMMISSION AND STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve General Plan Amendment No. 14-002 by adopting Resolution No. 2017-41, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Approving General Plan Amendment No. 14-002 for the General Plan Update” (ATTACHMENT NO. 1). Alternative Action(s): The City Council may make the following alternative motion(s): 1. Deny General Plan Amendment No. 14-002. 2. Continue General Plan Amendment No. 14-002 and direct staff accordingly. Environmental Status: In accordance with CEQA, Program EIR No. 14-001 was prepared to analyze the potential environmental effects of the General Plan Update. On September 17, 2017, the City Council certified Program EIR No. 14-001. Attachment(s): 1. City Council Resolution No. 2017-41, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Approving General Plan Amendment No. 14-002 for the General Plan Update” CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR. CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 10/2/2017 SUBMITTED TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members SUBMITTED BY: Fred A. Wilson, City Manager PREPARED BY: Scott Hess, AICP, Director of Community Development SUBJECT: Approve General Plan Amendment (GPA) No. 14-002 for the comprehensive update to the Huntington Beach General Plan by adopting Resolution No. 2017-41 HB -323-Item 10. - 1 Dept. ID CD 17-014 Page 2 of 2 Meeting Date: 10/2/2017 2. Public Hearing Draft General Plan Update, September 2017 – Only pages proposed to change from the May 2017 draft General Plan Update are attached 3. Public Comments Received on the draft General Plan Update 4. General Plan Land Use Map (Figure LU-2 of the Land Use Element) 5. September 18, 2017 City Council RCA 6. PowerPoint presentation 9-18-2017 HB -324-Item 10. - 2 RESOLUTION NO. 2017-41 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 14-002 FOR THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE WHEREAS, General Plan Amendment No. 14-002 is a City initiated request to provide an update to the citywide General Plan; and The City Council desires to update the General Plan in keeping with changing community needs and objectives; and General Plan Amendment No. 14-002 is necessary to accomplish an update of the General Plan that will incorporate new laws and requirements set forth by the State and to provide consistency between all elements of the General Plan; and The City Council finds that the update of the General Plan will eliminate or substantially lessen all significant environmental effects on the environment, where feasible, as shown in the findings under Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines, and the City Council has determined that any remaining significant effects on the environment found to be unavoidable under Section 15091 are acceptable due to overriding considerations as described in Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines; and The City Council further finds that the benefits gained by the City and its current and future residents by virtue of implementing the goals and policies of the General Plan Update override the unmitigable effects detailed in Environmental Impact Report No. 14-001, and the Statement of Overriding Considerations, attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated by this reference as though fully set forth herein; and The City Council finds that the changes to land use designations as described in General Plan Amendment No. 14-002 will be compatible with surrounding land uses; and General Plan Amendment No. 14-002 includes revisions to the land use designation map in the City, which reflect amendments to the current land use designations; and A public hearing regarding the adoption of General Plan Amendment No. 14-002 was held by the Huntington Beach Planning Commission on August 15, 2017 and the Planning Commission recommended its adoption to the City Council; and Thereafter the City Council, after giving notice as prescribed by Government Code Sections 65355 and 65090, held a public hearing on September 18, 2017 to consider adoption of General Plan Amendment No. 14-002; and At said Planning Commission and City Council hearings, all persons desiring to be heard on said Amendment were heard. 17-5944/162791/MV HB -325-Item 10. - 3 orney RESOLUTION NO. 2017-41 NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby resolve as follows: 1 That pursuant to the provisions of Title 7, Chapter 3, Article 6 of the California Government Code, commencing with Section 65350, General Plan Amendment No. 14-002, the General Plan Update, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated by this reference as though fully set forth herein, is hereby approved and adopted. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at an adjourned regular meeting held on day of , 2017. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk REVIEWED AND APPROVED: City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: /INITIATED AND APPROVED: ri rAelf. 11717A11117 / 4 Community evelopment Director Exhibit A — Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Exhibit B — General Plan Amendment No. 14-002 17-5944/162791/MV 2 HB -326-Item 10. - 4 EXHIBIT A HB -327-Item 10. - 5 City of Huntington Beach General Plan Updute Program Environmental Impact Report SOH No. 2015101032 August 2017 Lead Agency: City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 Prepared by: 3570 Carmel Mountain Road, Suite 300 San Diego, California 92130 HB -328-Item 10. - 6 Contents Contents 1.0 Introduction 1 2.0 CEQA Findings 3 3.0 Findings Regarding Project Alternatives 13 3.1 Introduction 13 3.2 Project Objectives 13 3.3 Selection of Alternatives 14 3.4 Project Alternative Findings 14 3.4.1 General Plan Update Alternatives 14 3.4.1.1 Alternative 1: No Project 15 Findings 16 3.4.1.2 Alternative 2: Full Implementation of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program (GGRP Alternative) 16 Findings 17 3.4.1.3 Alternative 3: Gothard Corridor Land Use Change (Gothard Corridor Alternative) 17 Findings 20 3.4.1.4 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Evaluation 20 Air Quality 20 Land Use 21 Noise 21 Utilities / Water Supply 21 Reduced Development Intensity Alternative 22 4.0 Statement of Overriding Considerations 23 4.1 Introduction 23 4.2 Significant Adverse Cumulative Impact 23 Air Quality 23 Cultural Resources 24 Greenhouse Gas Emissions 24 Noise 24 Utilities and Service Systems 25 4.3 Findings 25 4.4 Overriding Considerations 25 Proposed Project Benefits 26 Table Table 1 CEQA Findings for the Huntington Beach General Plan Update 4 Table 2 Draft GGRP GHG Reduction Estimates 17 Figure Figure 1 Alternative 3, Gothard Corridor Land Use Change Alternative 19 Atkins I City of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program DR Pagel August 2017 HB -329-Item 10. - 7 1.0 Introduction 1.0 INTRODUCTION This document presents the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations that must be adopted by the City of Huntington Beach pursuant to the requirements of Sections 15091 and 15093, respectively, of the CEQA Guidelines prior to the approval of the General Plan Update. This document is organized as follows: Chapter 1 Introduction to the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations. Chapter 2 Presents the CEQA Findings of the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (Draft Program EIR), including the identified significant cumulative impacts. Chapter 3 Presents the alternatives to the proposed project and evaluates them in relation to the findings contained in Section 15091(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines. The City of Huntington Beach must consider and make findings regarding alternatives when a project would involve environmental impacts that cannot be reduced to a less- than-significant level, or cannot be substantially reduced, by proposed mitigation measures. Chapter 4 Presents a Statement of Overriding Considerations that is required in accordance with Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines for significant impacts of a proposed project that cannot be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. The proposed project, as defined for CEQA purposes, consists of the adoption and implementation of the General Plan Update, which establishes an overall development capacity of 7,228 residential units and 5,384,920 non-residential square feet above existing (2014) conditions for the City of Huntington Beach and serves as a policy guide for determining the appropriate physical development and character of the City of Huntington Beach over an approximate 25-year planning horizon (to 2040). The General Plan Update also includes a Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program (GGRP) and a Coastal Resiliency Program (CRP). A GGRP provides near-term specific and measurable actions, programs, and projects to achieve greenhouse gas reduction goals as required by state legislation, and provides performance indicators and a monitoring tool. A CRP provides guiding engineering, ecological, and community resilience principles to address potential sea level rise in accordance with the adopted guidelines of the California Coastal Commission, while also identifying potential preparedness goals, actions, and an implementation strategy. In addition to the GGRP and CRP, the General Plan Update incorporates components of the existing General Plan (1996) that are still applicable today, while reducing the number of optional elements and proposing a streamlined approach to the goals and policies. The General Plan Update also establishes a new Research and Technology land use designation which highlights and prioritizes the city's commitment to job growth and sustained economic growth and vitality. While the General Plan Update does not change any of the existing residential designations or propose new areas of residential land within the City of Huntington Beach, it allows for continued residential growth within existing residential areas and the established densities of those areas. The General Plan Update functions as a plan for the management of resources and infrastructure to accommodate this projected growth. As identified in the Draft Program EIR, the General Plan Update is anticipated to result in eight significant unavoidable impacts (three project-specific and five cumulative impacts). In comparison to the alternatives analyzed against the Alktnt I City of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program E1R Page 1 August 2017 HB -330-Item 10. - 8 Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations General Plan Update as proposed, the City of Huntington Beach finds that the Alternative2, Full Implementation of the GGRP, is the environmentally superior alternative. The General Plan Update is a policy and framework document regarding future development within the City of Huntington Beach and does not include any specific development project. As such, the General Plan Update under CEQA does not require discretionary approval from Responsible or Trustee Agencies. However, in the future, as development is proposed in accordance with the General Plan Update, there may be projects that, in addition to approval by the city, may need federal, regional, and/or state Responsible and Trustee Agencies discretionary approval over specific aspects of the General Plan Update. Agencies that may have discretionary approval could include, but are not necessarily limited to: • Southern California Air Quality Management District regarding issues of air quality and associated permitting; • Regional Water Quality Control Board regarding water quality and quantity, as well as potential discharges into surface waters; • California Coastal Commission regarding potential issues relating to sea level rise; • California Department of Fish Wildlife regarding biological resources; • Caltrans regarding the Pacific Coast Highway and other roadways within the city that are under the maintenance of the state; and • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regarding waters of the U.S. and wetlands. Other agencies may use the Final Program EIR in exercising their duties even if they do not have discretionary permit approval authority over all or parts of the General Plan Update (or implementation of individual projects developed as a result of the General Plan Update). All projects that are proposed in the future under the General Plan Update will be required to obtain all necessary discretionary actions and environmental clearance, separate from this General Plan Update. Page 2 City of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program FIR I Atkins August 2017 HB -331-Item 10. - 9 2.0 CEQA Findings 2.0 CEQA FINDINGS This chapter presents the potential impacts that were identified in the Draft Program EIR and the findings that are required in accordance with Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines. The possible findings for each significant and/or potentially significant adverse impact are as follows: (a) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project which avoid, substantially lessen, or reduce the magnitude of the significant environmental effect as identified in the Draft Program EIR ("Finding 1"). (b) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the findings. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. ("Finding 2") (c) Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives in the Draft Program EIR ("Finding 3"). CEQA requires that the lead agency adopt mitigation measures or project alternatives, where feasible, to avoid or substantially reduce significant environmental impacts that would otherwise occur as a result of a project. Project modification or alternatives are not required, however, where they are infeasible or where the responsibility for modifying a project lies with some other agency (CEQA Guidelines §15091, subd. (a), [3]). Public Resources Code Section 21061.1 defines "feasible" to mean "capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social and technological factors". CEQA Guidelines Section 15364 adds another factor: "legal" considerations. (See also Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors [Goleta II] [1990] 52 Ca1.3d 553, 565 [276 Cal. Rptr. 410].) Only after fully complying with the findings requirement can an agency adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations. (Citizens for Quality Growth v. City of Mount Shasta [1988] 198 CalApp.3d 433, 442, 445 [243 Cal. Rptr. 727].) CEQA requires the Lead Agency to state in writing the specific rationale to support its actions based on a Final EIR and/or information in the record. This written statement is known as the Statement of Overriding Considerations. The Statement of Overriding Considerations provides the information that demonstrates the decision making body of the Lead Agency has weighed the benefits of a project against its unavoidable adverse effects in determining whether to approve a project. If the benefits of a project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse effects may be considered "acceptable." This document presents the findings of the City of Huntington Beach as required by CEQA, cites substantial evidence in the record in support of each of the findings, and presents an explanation to supply the logical step between the finding and the facts in the record. (CEQA Guidelines §15091.). Additional facts that support the findings are set forth in the Draft Program EIR, the Final Program EIR, staff reports to the Planning Commission and City Council, and the record of proceedings. Table 1 (CEQA Findings for the Huntington Beach General Plan Update) summarizes the potentially significant impacts of the Draft Program EIR that were reduced to less-than-significance levels with mitigation as well as the significant impact, as currently proposed for certification and adoption of the General Plan Update. Atkins City of Huntington Beach General Pion Update Program DR Page 3 August 2017 HB -332-Item 10. - 10 CEQA Findings for the Huntington Beach General Plan Update Impact Statement Impact Summary Findings of Fact/Statemenf of Overriding Considerations Air Quality The project would result in a project-specific significant and unavoidable air quality impact due to the violation of an air quality standard and exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Table .1 • The project would result in a cumulative contribution to an air quality impact, resulting in a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact to air quality. Air pollutant emissions associated with implementation of the General Plan Update would result from construction activities and operation of uses allowed under the General Plan Update. The amount of emissions generated by future development projects would vary depending on its size, the land area that would need to be disturbed during construction, and the length of the construction schedule, as well as the number of developments being constructed concurrently. Due to the speculative nature of estimating emissions from individual projects at the programmatic level of the General Plan Update, emissions cannot be quantified (as there is no project-level data) to establish whether the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) thresholds would be exceeded. Even with incorporation of mitigation measures MM4.2-1 through MM4.2-14, the General Plan Update would result in a significant and unavoidable air quality impact due to the violation of an air quality standard and exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. A significant impact may occur if a project would add a cumulatively considerable contribution of a federal or state nonattainment pollutant. Because the Basin is currently in nonattainment for ozone, PM/0, and PM2.5, related projects could exceed an air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality exceedance. Individual development projects may generate construction or operational emissions that would potentially exceed the SCAQMD recommended daily thresholds for project-specific impacts and would also potentially cause a cumulatively considerable increase in emissions for those pollutants, for which the Basin is in nonattainment. Due to the speculative nature of estimating emissions from individual projects at the programmatic level of the General Plan Update, emissions cannot be quantified (as there is no project-level data) to establish whether the SCAQMD thresholds would be exceeded in a region deemed to be in nonattainment. Implementation of mitigation measures MM4.2-1 through MM4.2- 14 would reduce these emissions, but not to a less than significant level. As such, the General Plan Update would result in a 1 Finding 3. The City of Huntington Beach finds that even with implementation of all feasible mitigation measures and ; compliance with applicable General Plan Update goals and policies, emissions of the General Plan Update could I result in an exceedance of established thresholds for daily emissions due to the speculative nature of future projects. I No mitigation measures in addition to MM4.2-1 through MM4.2-14 are feasible to reduce construction or operational air quality impacts to a less than significant level. Finding 3. The City of Huntington Beach finds that even with implementation of all feasible mitigation measures and compliance with applicable General Plan Update goals and policies, emissions of the General Plan Update could result in an exceedance of established thresholds for daily emissions due to the speculative nature of future projects. No mitigation measures in addition to MM4.2-1 through MlvS4.2-14 are feasible to reduce cumulative air quality impacts to a less than significant level. At k1n J City of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program BR Page 4 August 2o17 HB -333-Item 10. - 11 able 1 CEQA Findings for the Huntington Beach General Plan Update Impact Statement Impact Summary pact finding 2.0 CEQA Findings cumulative contribution to an air quality impact, resulting in a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact to air quality. It should be noted that the applicable General Plan Update policies would serve to reduce the severity of this impact, but not to a level of less than significant. Biological Resources - Construction of the proposed project Project implementation and construction-related activities may could have a substantial adverse effect, result in the disturbance of nesting species protected by the either directly or through habitat MBTA. Prior to the onset of ground disturbing activities, the City of modifications, on birds protected under Huntington Beach shall implement mitigation measure MM4.3-1, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. However, which entails focused surveys and avoidance measures for with mitigation measures, this impact is sensitive nesting and MBTA species, and appropriate agency considered less than significant. consultation. Implementation of the proposed project Although no wetlands are proposed to be disturbed as a result of could have a substantial adverse effect the General Plan Update, disturbance could result due to future on federally protected wetlands as development projects and construction-related activities that defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water result in the disturbance or removal of wetland habitat. Prior to Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, the onset of ground disturbing activities, mitigation measure vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct MM4.3-2 must be undertaken, which requires that a wetland removal, filling, hydrological interruption, delineation is conducted prior to development of any vacant or other means. However, with mitigation parcels, as deemed necessary by the City of Huntington Beach. measures, this impact is considered less If wetlands are found, the applicant will be required to obtain all than significant. necessary wetland permits and mitigate for impacts to wetland habitats. Cultural Resources Construction activities associated with implementation of the General Plan Update could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical, archaeological, paleontological and tribal remains on a cumulative basis. With incorporation of mitigation measures, this impact remains significant and unavoidable. As it is currently infeasible to determine whether future development under the General Plan Update would result in demolition or removal of historical, archaeological and paleontological resources within the planning area, the incremental contribution of the General Plan Update to these cumulative effects could be cumulatively considerable. Even with implementation of mitigation measures MM4.4-1, MM4.4-2, MM4.4-3 and MM4.4-4, the General Plan Update would result in a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact to cultural resources. Finding 1. The City of Huntington Beach finds that the identified changes or alterations in the General Plan Update, which would reduce the impact to existing habitats to less-than-significant levels, are hereby incorporated into the project. No additional mitigation measures are necessary with the implementation of mitigation measure MM4.3-1. Finding 1. The City of Huntington Beach finds that the identified changes or alterations in the General Plan : Update, which would reduce Impact 4.3-2 to less-than-significant levels, are hereby incorporated into the project. No additional mitigation measures are necessary with the implementation of mitigation measure MM4.3-2. Finding 3. The City of Huntington Beach finds that even with implementation of all feasible mitigation measures (MM4A-1 through MM4.4-4) and compliance with applicable requirements, the General Plan Update would result in a significant and unavoidable impact to historical, archaeological, paleontological and tribal resources on a cumulative basis. No feasible mitigation measures in addition to mitigation measures MM4.4-1 through MM4.4-4 are available. Afkirm I City of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program EIR Page 5 Augusf 2017 HB -334-Item 10. - 12 Findings of Fact/Statement of OverricFng Considerations Table 1 CEQA Findings for the Huntington Beach General Plan Update Impact Statement 1 Impact Summary Geology and Soils Impact Finding Future development under the General Plan Update could expose people and/or structures to potentially substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death, involving fault rupture, strong seismic groundshaking and/or seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction. With implementation of mitigation measures and compliance with applicable State and City regulations, this impact is considered less than significant. , . Greenhouse Gas Emissions The project would result in a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact due to the generation of GHG emissions and the potential conflict with an applicable plan. With incorporation of mitigation measures MM4.5-1 through MM4.5-3 which require that relevant studies be undertaken prior to issuance of grading and construction permits, impacts due to exposure of people to significant risk of geological failure will be reduced to a less than significant level. Finding 1. The City of Huntington Beach finds that the identified changes or alterations in the General Plan Update, which would reduce this impact to less-than-significant levels, are hereby incorporated into the General Plan Update. No additional mitigation measures are necessary with the implementation mitigation measures MM4.5-1 through MM4.5-3. Although reduction strategies outlined in the draft GGRP are expected to reduce GHG emissions below the state reduction targets, based on currently available data, uncertainties remain in the implementation of these strategies. Most of the reduction strategies in the draft GGRP will require additional action by City of Huntington Beach staff and officials, and the feasibility of implementing these strategies and specific implementation details rely on numerous factors that cannot be adequately forecast by the draft GGRP or the Program EiR, including economic feasibility, technological improvements, and community and political goals. The City of Huntington Beach is not bound by state or federal law, or by any local mechanism, to implement the reduction strategies in the draft GGRP. Moreover, the draft GGRP does not analyze GHG emissions associated with specific potential future development projects, and thus forecasted GHG emissions may differ from actual future emissions when implementation of the General Plan Update begins. This may be a result of faster-than-expected growth, reduction measures having a smaller effect on GHG emissions than anticipated, or other causes that may not become apparent until future years. Due to these factors, the General Plan Update would result in a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact due to the generation of GHG emissions and the potential conflict with an applicable plan. No other feasible mitigation „ - < ; Finding 1. The City of Huntington Beach finds that the identified changes or alterations in the project, which would I reduce this impact are hereby incorporated into the General Plan Update. However, the project would result in a significant and unavoidable impact. No feasible mitigation measures are available to reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. Alkim I City of Huntington reach General Plan Update Program OR Page 6 August 2017 HB -335-Item 10. - 13 The City has set minimum requirements for new building Finding 1. The City of Huntington Beach finds that the construction within the methane overlay districts in order to identified charges or alterations in the project, which would reduce the hazards presented from accumulations of methane reduce this impact to less-than-significant levels, are hereby gas by requiring the appropriate testing and mitigation measures incorporated into the General Plan Update. No additional for all new buildings within the methane districts. Implementation mitigation measures are necessary with the implementation of mitigation measure MM4.7-1 would ensure appropriate testing of mitigation measure MM4.7-1. and methods of gas reduction, as required by the HBFD. Development of any identified sites of contamination would be required to undergo remediation and clean up before construction activities can begin. If contamination at any future project site were to exceed regulatory action levels, a future project would be required to undertake remediation procedures prior to grading and development under the supervision of appropriate regulatory oversight agencies. Implementation of mitigation measures MM4.7-1 through MM4.7-3 would ensure tha contaminated sites undergo remediation activities prior to development activities, resulting in a less-than-significant level. Finding 1. The City of Huntington Beach finds that the identified changes or alterations in the project, which would I reduce this impact to less-than-significant levels, are hereby 1. incorporated into the General Plan Update. No additional mitigation measures are necessary with the implementation of mitigation measures MM4.7-1 through MM4.7-3. 2.0 CEQA Findirlgs Table 1 Hazards CEQA Findings for the Huntington Beach General Plan Update Impact Statement impact -Summary I measures are available beyond the strategies identified in he draft GGRP, Impact Finding Implementation of the proposed project could create a potential significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. However, with implementation of mitigation measures, this impact is considered less than significant. Individual sites within the planning area are included on a list of hazardous materials sites that could result in the spread of contamination and could create a significant hazard to the public or environment. However, with implementation of mitigation measures, this impact is considered less than significant. Implementation of the General Plan Update could impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. However, with implementation of mitigation measures, this impact is considered less than significant. Construction of future development under the General Plan Update could result in short-term temporary impacts due to roadway and infrastructure improvements and the potential extension of construction activities info the right-of-way. This could result in a reduction of the number of lanes or temporary closure of certain street segments. Any such impacts would be limited to the construction period of individual projects and would affect only adjacent streets or intersections. Mitigation measure MM4.7-4 would ensure that emergency response teams for the City of Huntington Beach would be notified of any lane closures during construction activities in the project site and that a minimum one lane would remain open at all times to provide adequate emergency access to the site and surrounding „ , „ , ; Finding I. The City of Huntington Beach finds that the identified changes or alterations in the General Plan I Update, which would reduce this impact to less-than-significant levels, are hereby incorporated into the General Plan Update. No additional mitigation measures are necessary with the implementation of mitigation measure MM4.7-4. Aildm I City of HuntIngton Beach General Plan Update Program ElR Page 7 August 2317 HB -336-Item 10. - 14 Findiags of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations Table I CEQA Findings for the Huntington Beach General Plan Update Impact Statement impact Summary neighborhoods, thereby resulting in a less-than-significant I impact. Impact Finding Hydrology and Water Qua* Construction and operation of the Specific Plan could increase stormwater runoff and alter existing land use such that stormwater pollutant loads or concentrations, including erosion and sediment, are increased. These processes could result in a violation of waste discharge requirements or water quality standards and provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. However, with implementation of mitigation measures, this impact is considered less than significant. Future development under the General Plan Update could result in substantial groundwater dewatering or deplete groundwater supplies. Implementation of mitigation measures MM4.8-1 and MM4.8- 2 would reduce this impact to less than significant. Future development under the General Plan Update could increase stormwater runoff, exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems, and cause on- or off-site flooding. With implementation of mitigation measure MM4.8-2, this impact is considered less than significant. Future development under the General Plan Update would include construction activities, which would temporarily disturb soils potentially resulting in erosion. During the operational phase of future development, the major source of pollution in stormwater runoff would be contaminants that have accumulated on rooftops and other impervious surfaces, such as parking lots, pedestrian walkways, and other improvements prior to connecting to the storm drain system. Implementation of mitigation measure MM4.8-1 would ensure that appropriate BMPs are used by requiring preparation of a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) in accordance with the Model I WQMP and Technical Guidance Document requirements and all current adopted permit. Construction activities are anticipated to have a less-than-significant impact on groundwater. Construction dewatering for l utilities, foundation excavation and fill, and below-grade structures could be required. Development of the project would require coverage under the De Minimus Threat General Permit, ; which would include discharge quantify and quality limitations. : Implementation of mitigation measures MM4.8-1 and MM4.8-2 would ensure that permanent groundwater dewatering does not cause or contribute to a lowering of the local groundwater table that would affect nearby water supply wells. Development under the General Plan Update could result in an increase in the amount of impervious surfaces compared to existing conditions, thereby increasing stormwater runoff. Incorporation of mitigation measure MM4.8-2 would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. Finding 1, The City of Huntington Beach finds that the identified changes or alterations in the General Plan Update, which would reduce this impact to less-than-significant levels, are hereby incorporated into the General Plan Update. No additional mitigation measures are necessary with implementation of mitigation measure MM4.8-1. Finding 1. The City of Huntington Beach finds that the identified changes or alterations in the General Plan Update, which would reduce this impact to less-than-significant levels, are hereby incorporated into the General Plan Update. No additional mitigation measures are necessary with the implementation of mitigation measures MM4.8-1 and MM4.8-2. Finding 1. The City of Huntington Beach finds that the identified changes or alterations in the General Plan Update, which would reduce this impact to less-than-significant levels, are hereby incorporated into the General Plan Update. No additional mitigation measures are necessary with the implementation of mitigation measure MM4.8-2. Adkins I City of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program EIR Page 8 August 2017 HB -337-Item 10. - 15 2.0 CEQA Findings CEQA Findings for the Huntington Beach General Plan Update Impact Statement impact Summary Taktie 1 Future development under the General Plan Update could increase stormwater runoff, exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems, and cause flooding. However, with implementation of mitigation measure MM4.8-3, this impact is considered less than significant. Noise The storm drain system serving the planning area may be constrained by or during future construction activities associated with development under the General Plan Update. Implementation of the Municipal NPDES Permit requires that priority development projects must infiltrate, harvest and re-use, evapotranspire, or bio-treat storm events. While this would also result in a reduction in peak flow rates, this would not ensure that future development has adequate storm drain capacity. Implementation of mitigation measure MM4.8-3 would require that future development demonstrate storm drain capacity to accommodate necessary flows, reducing this impact to less than significant. Impact Finding „ . „ . Finding 1. The City of Huntington beach finds that the identified changes or alterations in the General Plan Update, which would reduce this impact to less-than-significant levels, are hereby incorporated into the General Plan Update. No additional mitigation measures are necessary with the implementation of mitigation measure MM4.8-3. The project would result in an increase in ambient noise levels due to an increase in vehicle trips during operation that would result in a project-specific significant and unavoidable impact. The General Plan Update would result in an increase in average daily trips (A DI) associated with future development, increasing ambient noise levels due to roadway noise levels, some of which would exceed established thresholds. As the increase in ambient noise levels is vehicle-related, there are no feasible mitigation measures that would reduce ambient noise levels and exposure below the identified thresholds and the General Plan Update would result in a project-specific significant and unavoidable noise impact. While implementing the policies of the General Plan Update would reduce roadway noise levels, community ambient noise levels still would increase substantially throughout the planning area by 2040. Because the increase in ambient noise levels would result from vehicle-related noise, there are no available or feasible mitigation measures that would reduce ambient noise levels and exposure below the identified thresholds. Therefore, this cumulative impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Finding 3. The City of Huntington Beach finds that even with implementation of all feasible mitigation measures and compliance with applicable General Plan Update goals I and policies, the General Plan Update could result in a lsignificant and unavoidable impact due to an increase in the ambient noise levels (during operation) due to an increase in roadway traffic. No mitigation measures in addition to mitigation measures MM4.10-1 through MM4.10- 5 are feasible to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Atkins I City of Huntington Beach General Flan Update Program EIR Page 9 August 2017 HB -338-Item 10. - 16 Findngs of Fact/Stotement of Overriding Considerations :CEQA Findings for the Huntington :Beach General Plain Update Impact Summary Future development under the General Plan Update would increase the demand on public services including fire, police, libraries and schools. However, with incorporation of mitigation measures MM4.12-1 through MM4.12-7, impacts to these public services would be reduced to a less than significant level. Future development under the General Plan Update would increase the demand on recreational services. However, with incorporation of mitigation measures MM4.13-1 and MM4.13-2 impacts to these public services would be reduced to a less than significant level. Table 1 Impact Statement , The project would result in a project-specific significant and unavoidable impact on ambient noise levels during construction due to the exposure of persons to the generation of groundbome vibration. Public Services Future development under the General Plan Update would increase the demand on public services including fire, police, libraries and schools. However, with incorporation of mitigation measures tv‘M4.12-1 through IvIM4.12-7, impacts to these public services would be reduced to a less than significant level Recreation Future development under the General Plan Update would increase the demand on recreational services. However, with incorporation of mitigation measures MM4.13-1 and MM4.13-2, impacts to recreation would be reduced to a less than significant level i Finding 1. The City of Huntington beach finds that the I identified changes or alterations in the General Plan Update, which would reduce this impact to less-than- significant levels, are hereby incorporated into the General Plan Update. No additional mitigation measures are i necessary with the implementation of mitigation measures MM4.12-1 through MM4.12-7. Finding 1. The City of Huntington beach finds that the identified changes or alterations in the General Plan Update, which would reduce this impact to less-than-significant levels, are hereby incorporated into the General Plan Update. No additional mitigation measures are necessary with the implementation of mitigation measures MM4.13-1 and IvW4.13-2. Future development under the General Plan Update has the Finding 3. The City of Huntington Beach finds that even with potential to generate construction vibration levels in implementation of all feasible mitigation measures and exceedance of established thresholds at nearby sensitive compliance with applicable General Plan Update goals receptors (i.e., those within 50 feet of piling activities). Although and policies, the General Plan Update could result in a future development would comply with General Plan Policies N- significant and unavoidable impact due exposure of 4.A and N-4.D and implementation of mitigation measure persons to the generation of groundborne vibration during MM4.10-5 would help to reduce impacts, construction vibration construction. No mitigation measures in addition to levels would not be reduced to a level that would be less than i mitigation measure MM4.10-5 is feasible to reduce impacts significant. Therefore, the General Plan Update would result in a to a less than significant level. project-specific (and temporary) significant and unavoidable impact due to construction vibration levels. Compliance with General Plan Policies N-4.A and N-4.D and implementation of mitigation measure MM4.10-5 would help to reduce potential groundborne vibration impacts associated with future construction activities, but not to a level that would be less than significant because certain construction activities may still be required in proximity to nearby sensitive receptors. Therefore, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Impact Finding Afk1ns I City of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program EiR Page 10 August 2017 HB -339-Item 10. - 17 2.0 CEQA Findings he Huntington Beach General Plan Update impact Summary, Table 1 CEQA Findings fo Impact Statement Transportation/Traffic Under 2040 conditions, development under the General Plan Update could result in an increase in traffic that would exceed the City of Huntington Beach standard LOS for intersections under the amended MPAH scenario. With incorporation of mitigation measures MM4.14-1 through MM4.14-3, these impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. Utilities and Service Systems Future development under the General Plan Update could require new sewer connections, and could require or result in the construction of new or expanded wastewater conveyance systems. However, with implementation of mitigation measures MM4.15-1, this impact is considered less than significant. Implementation of growth allowed under the General Plan Update is expected to exceed the City of Huntington Beach standard for LOS for principal intersections (LOS D) and secondary (LOS C) under the Amended MPAH scenario at the following locations: • Gothard Street and Center Avenue (Secondary Intersection) • Beach Boulevard and Heil Avenue (Principal Intersection • Brookhurst Street and Adams Avenue (Principal Intersection) All other intersections are expected to operate at acceptable LOS. With incorporation of mitigation measures MM4.14-1 through MM4.14-3, these impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. Future development under the General Plan Update could introduce the need for additional infrastructure or connections to existing infrastructure, including sewer connections and water conveyance systems. With incorporation of mitigation measure MM4.15-1 and adherence to existing City of Huntington Beach processes, this impact would be reduced to a less than significant level. Impact Finding Finding 1. The City of Huntington beach finds that the ! identified changes or alterations in the General Plan ' Update, which would reduce this impact to less-than- :: significant levels, are hereby incorporated into the General i Plan Update. No additional mitigation measures are necessary with the implementation of mitigation measures MM4.14-1 through MM4.13-3. I Finding 1. The City of Huntington beach finds that the I identified changes or alterations in the General Plan Update, which would reduce this impact to less-than- !significant levels, are hereby incorporated into the General Plan Update. No additional mitigation measures is : necessary with the implementation of mitigation measures MM4.15-1. The project would result in a significant 1Given the uncertainty of water supplies across the western United Finding 3. The City of Huntington Beach finds that even with and unavoidable project-specific impact States and throughout the state of California, a future supply implementation of all feasible mitigation measures and on existing water supplies. Ideficit would result in a significant and unavoidable impact. Until i compliance with applicable General Plan Update goals such time as greater confidence in and commitment from water and policies, the General Plan Update could result in a suppliers can be made, even with implementation of mitigation significant and unavoidable impact due to water supply. measure MM4.15-2, the General Plan Update would No mitigation measures in addition to MM4.15-2 is are conservatively result in a significant and unavoidable project- I feasible to reduce water supply impacts to a less than specific impact. significant level. Aikin$ I City of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program EIR Page 11 Augusi 2017 HB -340-Item 10. - 18 Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations Tablel CEQA Findings for the Huntington Beach General Plan Update mpact Statement The project would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to water demand and would result in a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact. Impact Summary impact Finding As with the project-specific impact, given the uncertainty of i Finding 3. The City of Huntington Beach finds that even with water supply across the western United States and throughout implementation of all feasible mitigation measures and the state of California, a future supply deficit would result in a compliance with applicable General Plan Update goals significant and unavoidable impact. Until such time as greater and policies, the General Plan Update could result in a confidence in and commitment from water suppliers can be significant and unavoidable impact due to water supply. made, even with implementation of mitigation measure MM4.15- No mitigation measures in addition to MM4.15-2 is are 2, the General Plan Update would result in a cumulatively feasible to reduce cumulative water supply impacts to a considerable contribution to water demand, result in a significant less than significant level. and unavoidable cumulative impact. Atkins I City of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program BR Page 12 August 2017 HB -341-Item 10. - 19 3.0 Findiaw Re.g.9rding Project Alternatives 3.0 FINDINGS REGARDING PROJECT ALTERNATIVES 3.1 Introduction The Draft Program EIR prepared for the General Plan Update considered three alternatives to the project as proposed. Pursuant to Section 15126.6{a) of the CEQA Guidelines, the primary intent of an alternatives evaluation is to "describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives." This chapter describes the project objectives and criteria used to develop and evaluate project alternatives presented in the Draft Program El R. A description of the alternatives compared to the General Plan Update and the findings regarding the feasibility of adopting the described alternatives is presented for use by the City of Huntington Beach in the decision-making process. 3.2 Project Objectives The guiding principles for the General Plan Update have been modified as follows to serve as project objectives for the Program EIR: 1) Economic Vitality: Maintain an innovation-friendly environment where local businesses thrive and become a top choice for highly qualified job seekers. 2) Infrastructure: Update water, sewer, drainage, street, and other infrastructure facilities through a comprehensive systems approach to adequately serve future growth while supporting the existing community. 3) Open Space and Recreation: Maintain a balance of open space and recreational activities throughout the community. 4) Surf City Community Image: Promote Huntington Beach's unique Surf City image, identity, and culture as a beach community. 5) Public Safety: Create a safe and secure community by preparing for natural hazards and improving street lighting and design to enhance safety in public areas, parks, and streets. 6) Redevelopment and Revitalization: Revitalize commercial corridors and older industrial areas to support economic development. Enhance the community through successful infill development and a diverse array of housing types. 7) Mobility and Access: Retrofit high-traffic corridors to better connect cyclists, pedestrians, and transit users, support use of alternative fuel vehicles, and reduce traffic congestion. 8) Resource Conservation: Protect natural resources within the community and become a regional leader in sustainability. Shift toward renewable energy resources and conservation practices to achieve the city's self-sufficiency goals. Atkins I City of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program Elk Page 13 August 2017 HB -342-Item 10. - 20 Findings of Faci/Statement of Oveniding Considerations 9) Resident Services: Update and expand community and social services to meet the needs of all community members, including youth and seniors. 10) Culture and Arts: Support programs, activities, and facilities that celebrate the city's historical and cultural heritage. 3.3 Selection of Alternatives The range of feasible alternatives was selected and discussed in a manner to foster meaningful public participation and informed decision-making. Among the factors that were taken into account when considering the feasibility of alternatives (as described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[f][1]) were environmental impacts, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries, and attainment of project objectives. As stated in Section 15126.6(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, the Draft Program EIR need not consider an alternative whose effects could not be reasonably identified, whose implementation is remote or speculative, or one that would not achieve the basic project objectives. The analysis includes sufficient information about each alternative to provide meaningful evaluation, analysis and comparison with the proposed project. 3.4 Project Alternative Findings The following is a description of the alternatives evaluated in comparison to the General Plan Update, as well as a description of the specific economic, social, or other considerations that make them infeasible for avoiding or lessening the impacts. The City of Huntington Beach finds that the adoption of both Alternative 2 and 3 could be feasible, given direction from the Planning Commission and/or City Council. 3.4.1 General Plan Update Alternatives As shown below and in Chapter 5 (Alternatives) of the Draft Program EIR, three alternatives were evaluated in comparison to the proposed project, including the No Project Alternative required by CEQA. The environmental advantages and disadvantages of each of these alternatives are described. The alternatives that were selected for analysis include: • Alternative 1: No Project—The No Project Alternative assumes the continued implementation of the existing General Plan (1996), instead of the General Plan Update as proposed. Under this alternative, the existing General Plan land uses would remain in place and development within the City of Huntington Beach would occur as in a reasonable manner, as allowed by the goals and polices of the existing General Plan. This alternative, which is required by CEQA, assumes that the existing General Plan and implementing zoning would remain unchanged. The existing General Plan would remain in effect, and no update to the existing General Plan goals and policies would occur. The No Project Alternative would allow for an additional 1,096 residential units above that proposed in the General Plan Update and 4,662,990 square feet of development below that proposed in the General Plan Update. • Alternative 2: Full Implementation of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program (GGRP Alternative)—Under this alternative, the City of Huntington Beach would require and implement the entirety of the draft GGRP, which is currently proposed as a voluntary program as part of the General Plan Update. Policy ERC-5.A in the General Plan Update sets targets for Huntington Beach to reduce its total GHG emissions to 15 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, and 53.33 percent Page 14 City of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program SR I Atkins August 2017 HB -343-Item 10. - 21 3.0 Findings Regarding Project Alternatives below the 2020 target by 2040, placing the community on a trajectory to match the state's long- term (2050) GHG reduction goals. Under this alternative, the draft GGRP would no longer be voluntary and instead would be a required implementation action and undertaken in its entirety, as part of approval of the General Plan Update. Based on the estimates provided in the draft GGRP, full implementation would reduce GHG emissions in both 2020 and 2040 timeframes to a less than significant level. As a result, the GGRP Alternative would eliminate one of the significant and unavoidable impacts identified for the General Plan Update. Alternative 3: Gothard Corridor Land Use Change (Gothard Corridor Alternative)—The Gothard Corridor Alternative assumes that all land uses within the Gothard Corridor are changed from the designation of Industrial to the new Research and Technology designation created under the General Plan Update. Under this alternative, approximately 146 additional acres of land designated as industrial under the proposed General Plan Update would be changed to the new Research and Technology land use designation. As a result of this land use change, new opportunities for high tech, research and development uses that do not involve heavy industrial uses would be allowed and promoted within the Gothard Corridor. It is anticipated that significant and unavoidable impacts identified under the General Plan Update due to greenhouse gas emissions and noise could increase as a result of the increase in vehicle trips and associated emissions. Therefore, the impact conclusion of significant and unavoidable would remain the same as identified for the General Plan Update. 3.4.1.1 Alternative 1: No Project The No Project Alternative assumes the implementation of the existing General Plan (1996), instead of the General Plan Update as proposed. Under this alternative, the existing General Plan land uses would remain in place and development within the city would occur as anticipated in a reasonable manner allowed by the goals and policies of the existing General Plan. The anticipated growth under this Alternative does not necessarily equate to the full buildout assumed at the time of adoption of the existing General Plan (1996) but rather a lower level of growth that is reasonably forecast given existing conditions within the city of Huntington Beach, and based on the development projects of the 2013 Circulation Element as well as the goals and policies of the existing General Plan (1996). Development under the existing General Plan would increase residential development by 1,096 units when compared to buildout under the General Plan Update and result in a decrease in non-residential development potential when compared to non-residential buildout potential of the General Plan Update. Alternative No Project/ General Plan Update Existing 1996 General Plan , Residential 85,403 dwelling units 86,499 dwelling units Non-Residential 50,410,990 square feet 45,748,000 square feet Based on these estimates, the majority of development anticipated to occur under the No Project Alternative would consist of residential development within specific plan areas (i.e., Holly Seacliff Specific Plan, Downtown Specific Plan, etc.), as well as areas surrounding these specific plan areas. Thus, this alternative, which is required by CEQA, assumes that the existing General Plan and implementing zoning would remain unchanged. The existing General Plan would remain in effect, and no update to the existing General Plan goals and policies would occur. Difference +1,096 dwelling units - 4,662,990 square feet Aikin3 I City of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program E1R Page 15 August 2017 HB -344-Item 10. - 22 Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerafions Under the No Project Alternative, development would continue as allowed under the 1996 General Plan and would result in an increase of 1,096 dwelling units above the General Plan Update and a total of 45,748,000 square feet of non-residential square footage, a reduction of 4,662,990 square feet as compared to the General Plan Update. The No Project Alternative would generally meet the objectives identified for the General Plan Update in that it would allow for land uses consistent with the existing character of the city and continue to provide sufficient infrastructure to meet demand. However, the No Project Alternative would not fully meet any of the objectives that will act as a catalyst to move the city into the coming decades, while creating investment in employment opportunities, transit investment and increased mobility by which to enjoy a more environmentally friendly and sustainable community. Further, the General Plan Update would provide a unified planning approach and specific design standards where future subsequent projects serve as independent pieces of the greater whole. Development under the No Project Alternative will be more of the same type of development and does not include key policies and land use changes necessary to spur employment and economic growth. The No Project Alternative will not fulfill the objectives identified for the General Plan Update and while it will not generally result in impacts with a different level of significance, it will increase the severity of impacts within many of the topic areas (Population, Housing and Employment; Recreation; Utilities and Service Systems). 3.4.1.2 Alternative 2: Full Implementation of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program (GGRP Alternative) As identified in Section 5.2 (Alternatives Considered but Rejected as Infeasible) of the FEIR, the General Plan Update is anticipated to result in a significant and unavoidable impact due to the uncontrolled emission of greenhouse gases. In an effort to reduce the severity of this impact or avoid it entirely, the GGRP Alternative is proposed. Under this alternative, the City would implement the entirety of the draft GGRP, which is currently proposed as a voluntary program as part of the General Plan Update. Policy ERC-5A in the General Plan provides a target for Huntington Beach to reduce its total GAG emissions to 15% below 2005 levels by 2020, and 53.33% below the 2020 target by 2040, placing the community on a trajectory to match the state's long-term (2050) GAG reduction goals. As proposed, the draft GGRP contains a suite of strategies capable of reducing Huntington Beach's GHG emissions to levels at or below the following: • 2020 GAG reduction target 1,234,260 MTCO2e • 2040 GAG reduction target 575,990 MTCO2e As designed, this program proposes the reduction of GAG emissions within the city through a series of programs, initiatives, and activities that reduce GAG generation, sequesters GAG emissions, or offsets their production (i.e., use of alternative energy sources). While portions of the draft GGRP would likely be implemented alongside the General Plan Update, there would be no requirement to implement any specific measures, nor to incorporate a combination of measures that would result in a reduction of the greenhouse gases to a level that would be less than significant. Page 16 City of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program EIR Atkins August 2017 HB -345-Item 10. - 23 Table 2 Draft GGRP GHG Reduction Estimates Baseline emissions Forecast with state and local accomplishments I Reduction target 2020 MK 0.2e 1,452,070 1,308,690 1,234,260 2040 MTCO2e (No CCA) 1,452,070 1,101,020 575,990 1,452,070 1,102,850 . . . 575,990 525,030 618,320 570,370 3.0 Hndings Regarding Project Alternatives Under this alternative, the draft GGRP would no longer be voluntary and instead would be a required implementation action and undertaken in its entirety, as part of approval of the General Plan Update. Based on the estimates provided in the draft GGRP, full implementation would reduce GHG emissions in both 2020 and 2040 timeframes to a less than significant level. Table 2 below identifies the estimated reductions. Gap between forecast and reduction target Emissions with Draft GGRP Gap between Draft GGRP and reduction target Target met 42,330 -5,620 No Yes As a result, the GGRP Alternative would eliminate one of the significant and unavoidable impacts identified for the General Plan Update. Find Land use, associated assumptions regarding growth, identified mitigation measures and compliance with General Plan Update goals and policies of the GGRP Alternative would be implemented in a manner identical to the General Plan Update. The only change is that the draft GGRP shifts from being a voluntary set of strategies to reduce GHG emissions, to a required implementation action of the General Plan Update. As such the GGRP Alternative would accomplish the Project Objectives outlined in Section 3.3.2.2 of the Program OR in the same manner as the General Plan Update but would have a greater benefit with regard to the project impact identified relating to GHG emissions and the potential achievement of State and regional GHG emissions targets through 2040. Implementation of the GGRP Alternative is considered to be the environmentally superior alternative. 3.4.1.3 Alternative 3: Gothard Corridor Land Use Change (Gothard Corridor Alternative) As outlined in Section 5.2 (Alternatives Considered but Rejected as Infeasible) of the FEIR, the General Plan Update is anticipated to result in significant and unavoidable impacts to Air Quality, Greenhouse Gases (emissions) and Noise. While the impact to Air Quality identified in relation to the General Plan Update is based on the speculative nature of the programmatic level of the land use plan, the potential for impacts at a future project-level can be further reduced by a reduction in the intensity of land uses, and associated trip generation, criteria pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions. Furthermore, one of the comment letters received on the NOP published for the General Plan Update in 2015 related to the potential impacts due to noise, criteria pollutant emissions, and traffic generated by existing land uses in Aitdris I City of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program EIR Page 17 August 2017 HB -346-Item 10. - 24 Findings af Fact/Statement of Overridin9 Considerations the Gothard Corridor (specifically Republic Services). The comment letter went on to suggest that an expansion of the new Research and Technology land use designation proposed under the General Plan Update farther east along the Gothard Corridor could help to alleviate unsatisfactory existing conditions that include odors and other air quality issues, noise and traffic impacts, and related environmental justice issues. The letter also indicated that new heavy industrial uses would be concentrated in areas with existing Industrial land use designations that would remain Industrial under the General Plan Update, particularly along the eastern portion of the Gothard corridor, because they would no longer be allowed under the Research and Technology designation. While the project proposed under CEQA (the General Plan Update) and any project alternatives analyzed are not required to investigate the potential remediation or mitigation of existing conditions, to address the concerns of the comment letter, the Gothard Corridor Alternative is proposed for analysis. A change in development type and intensity can also change the potential for noise impacts, particularly those due to roadway noise as identified for the General Plan Update. This alternative has been developed in direct response to identified land use compatibility concerns regarding industrial land uses currently adjacent to residential and semi-public uses, including schools, within the Gothard Corridor. The intent of the Research and Technology land use designation is to promote the transformation of this corridor into an area focused on research and development, to attract businesses and jobs in the high technology services and manufacturing sectors and potentially reduce some of the environmental and quality of life impacts generated by existing uses today. Development of this alternative attempts to address some of the environmental justice concerns that have been raised in this area of the city. The Gothard Corridor Alternative assumes that all land uses within the Gothard Corridor are changed from the designation of Industrial to the new Research and Technology designation created under the General Plan Update. Under this alternative, approximately 146 additional acres of land designated as Industrial within the Gothard Corridor on the proposed General Plan Update land use map would be changed to the new Research and Technology designation. Figure 1 shows the areas of the city changed by the proposed alternative.' As a result of this land use change, new opportunities for development that do not involve heavy industrial uses would be allowed and promoted within the Gothard Corridor. However, this change would also increase the FAR to 1.0 under the Research and Technology land use designation, as compared to the 0.75 FAR allowed by the Industrial land use designation. This change could increase the allowable development by approximately 990,000 square feet of non-residential uses within the Gothard Corridor. This increase in development potential is anticipated to result in a marked increase in trip generation within the Gothard Corridor and proximate areas. 1 The Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs) affected by the Gothorci Corridor Alternative include the following: 102, 121, 123, and 135. Page 18 City at Fiuntingion Beach General Plan Update Program FIR I Atkins August 2017 HB -347-Item 10. - 25 pf.(1 OPI 3.0 Findings Regarding ProjRct Alternatives FIGURE Nternative 3, Got hard Corridor Land Use Change Alternative Atkins I City of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program EIR Page 19 August 2017 HB -348-Item 10. - 26 Rndings of Faci/Statement of Overridtna Considerafjons Land use, associated assumptions regarding growth, identified mitigation measures and compliance with General Plan Update goals and policies of the Gothard Corridor Alternative would be implemented in a manner identical to the General Plan Update. The only divergence from the General Plan Update would be the change in land use designation along the entire Gothard Corridor from Industrial to Research and Technology. Under the Gothard Corridor Alternative, the amount of land within in the planning area designated as Industrial would be reduced and changed to the Research and Technology land use designation (146 additional acres). As a result of the Gothard Corridor Alternative, it is anticipated that significant and unavoidable impacts identified under the General Plan Update due to greenhouse gas emissions and noise could increase as a result of the increase in vehicle trips and associated emissions. However, the impact conclusion of significant and unavoidable would remain the same as identified for the General Plan Update. While this alternative would achieve the majority of the objectives identified for the General Plan Update (as it is substantially similar to the General Plan Update), it would not achieve avoidance of any of the significant and unavoidable impacts identified for the General Plan Update and would increase the ADT across the planning area, potentially resulting in an additional significant impact to traffic. 3.4.1.4 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Evaluation Five additional land use alternatives were initially considered during the scoping and planning process but were not selected for detailed analysis in the Draft Program EIR. These included: Air Quality, Land Use, Noise, Utilities (Water Supply), and Reduced Development Intensity Alternative. Air Quality The significant air quality impacts that are identified as a result of the General Plan Update are the result of the speculative nature of estimating the emissions from individual projects. The quantity of emissions generated by a project varies depending on such aspects as its size, the land area that would need to be disturbed during construction, the length of the construction schedule, as well as the number of developments being constructed concurrently and in proximity to an individual project. Any variation of a long-term planning document, regardless of land use changes, would result in the same significant impacts due to the speculative nature of individual development projects. The only way to reduce these impacts would be on an individual project basis, as each of the identified and project-specific factors would be known and emissions could then be estimated accurately to determine whether they would exceed SCAQMO thresholds. Due to the programmatic and high-level nature of the land use plan and program, the General Plan Update cannot be considered as one project to support a feasible Alternative. As a result, an Alternative specific to the reduction of the identified air quality impacts was rejected as infeasible. Page 20 City of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program EIR I Atkins August 2017 HB -349-Item 10. - 27 3.0 Findings Regardin.g..Prele.ci Alternatives Land Use During the General Plan Update process (including GPAC), several other areas of the city were assessed for potential changes to land use or enhancements to key intersections and/or developments. Two key areas that were considered by the City, but ultimately rejected, include the Peters Landing Opportunity area (consisting of Peter's Landing and adjacent parcels), located along the Pacific Coast Highway north of the Sunset Beach area, and the Southeast Opportunity Area, which included the Ascon Landfill, Plains tank farm, and AES power plant sites. Based on consideration and subsequent direction from the City Council, it was determined that land use changes in these areas were not preferred and no changes to land use are proposed as part of the General Plan Update. While the identification of these areas early in the General Plan Update process as key opportunity sites for achieving economic growth in the city could warrant further consideration for an alternatives analysis, these areas were already rejected by the decision makers from further consideration as part of the General Plan Update. In addition, land use changes for these areas would require increases in development density/intensity that are not likely to reduce any potential impacts when compared to the proposed General Plan Update. Noise Similar to the speculative nature of identified impacts for Air Quality, a significant and unavoidable impact due to roadway noise and groundbome vibration (during construction) were determined to be significant. With regard to roadway noise levels, community ambient noise levels would still increase substantially throughout the planning area by 2040. Because the increase in ambient noise levels would result from vehicle-related noise, a likely alternative that would reduce traffic levels enough to reduce noise levels due to roadway noise (based primarily on the location of existing residential uses) is not possible. With regard to groundborne vibration, while it has been determined that the location of vibration-heavy construction activities outside of 50 feet from a sensitive receptor would result in a less than significant impact, it is not possible to ensure that vibration-inducing activities could, in fact be located at such a distance in all cases. For example, in the Downtown area, where pile driving activities are necessary for subterranean parking structure construction, it may be necessary in the future to allow for vibration-heavy activities. Due to the uncertainty and the inability to prohibit such equipment, impacts in close proximity to sensitive receptors will remain significant and unavoidable. Further, any variation of a long-term planning document, regardless of land use changes, would result in the same significant impacts due to the speculative nature of individual development projects. As a result, an Alternative specific to the reduction of the identified groundborne vibration impacts was rejected as infeasible. Utilities / Water Supply Although the situation has improved within the latter part of 2016 and into the early parts of 2017, California continues to face a significant water crisis. Along with continued water reserve issues throughout the west and across California, delivery and reliability of water sources and supplies continues to be speculative. These conditions have prompted water suppliers, including Metropolitan, to review and continue to amend water supply projections, thus leaving less water available for jurisdictions than was previously assumed. The statewide supply situation is subject, and even likely, to change and over years, depending on precipitation, could return to a condition of normalcy and regular pumping. However, until that point in Atkins I City of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program EIR Page 21 August 2017 HB -350-Item 10. - 28 Findings of Fact/Staternent of Overriding Considerations time, the water supply deficit and uncertainty exists regardless of implementation of the General Plan Update or other individual projects and due to the uncertainty regarding imported water supplies, the impacts would remain significant. As this is a condition across the state of California and not a result of the General Plan Update, an Alternative that would significantly increase water supply availability is not feasible. Therefore, an Alternative specific to the reduction of identified impacts to water supplies was rejected as infeasible. Reduced Development Intensity Alternative Over the period of development of the General Plan Update, a variety of information has been considered with regard to an alternative that would result in an overall reduced amount of development. This has ranged considerably, addressing discussions through the GPAC process as well as requirements of the MAND and the Housing Element, and aspirations of growth and organized future development within the city of Huntington Beach. To address reduction of significant and unavoidable impacts resulting from the General Plan Update as required under CEQA, further consideration of an alternative that reflected a reduced amount of development was undertaken. This included discussions of such reductions as an overall reduced amount of development (i.e., a reduction of a certain percentage across all residential and non-residential development) to address general objection to the General Plan Update, increased changes to the non- residential development land use designations to address comments received during GPAC and in response to the NOP released for the General Plan Update EIR, and reduction of residential development with the assumption that it would reduce traffic congestions perceived throughout the city. However, when these were considered, none provided substantially different or reduced environmental impacts to the more focused alternatives identified in Section 5.3 Alternatives Selected for Further Analysis. Further, as outlined by CEQA, any alternative analyzed must balance compliance with stated project objectives, social and economic benefits and detriments, and the feasibility of implementing such an alternative. In consideration of these potential alternatives, it was determined that the Full Implementation of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program and Gothard Corridor Land Use Change Alternatives would result in similar, if not more significant, reductions in the environmental impacts resulting from the General Plan Update and as such, another alternative with a proposed reduction in development intensity but with less focus and/or purpose would not be sensible, in alignment with project objectives, or supported by the arguments outlined in CEQA Section 15126.6(a) with regard to the selection of project alternatives. As such, analysis of a second alternative that addressed the potential reduction of development intensity under the General Plan Update was rejected as infeasible. As these five alternatives would not reduce or avoid additional significant and unavoidable impacts identified for the General Plan Update and would not better achieve any of the project objectives, they were not analyzed further. Page 22 City of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program EIR I Atkins August 2017 HB -351-Item 10. - 29 4.0 Statement of Overriding Considerations 4.0 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 4.1 Introduction Section 15093 of the CEQA guidelines states: (a) CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered "acceptable." (b) When the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the Final Program HR but are not avoided or substantially lessened, the agency shall state in writing the specific reason to support its actions based on the Final Program EIR and/or other information in the record. The statement of overriding considerations shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. (c) If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement should be included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the notice of determination. The City of Huntington Beach proposes to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations regarding the significant cumulative air quality, cultural resource, GHG, noise, and utilities/water supply impacts of the General Plan Update. This section describes the anticipated benefits and other considerations of the General Plan Update to support the decision to proceed, even though significant and unavoidable impacts are anticipated. 4.2 Significant Adverse Cumulative Impact The City of Huntington Beach is proposing to approve the proposed project, with revisions to reduce environmental impacts, and has prepared a Draft Program DR as required by CEQA. Even with revisions to the project, the following impacts have been identified as being unavoidable as there are no feasible mitigation measures available to further reduce the impacts. Refer to Chapter 2 (CEQA Findings) for further clarification regarding the impact listed below. Air Quality Project Specific Due to the speculative nature of estimating emissions from individual projects at the programmatic level of the General Plan Update, emissions cannot be quantified (as there is no project-level data) to establish whether the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) thresholds would be exceeded and the project would result in a significant and unavoidable air quality impact due to the violation of an air quality standard and exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Cumulative Due to the speculative nature of estimating emissions from individual projects at the programmatic level of the General Plan Update, emissions cannot be quantified (as there is no project-level data) to establish Atkins I City of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program EIR Page 23 August 2017 HB -352-Item 10. - 30 Findings of Faci/Stafement of Overriding Considerations whether the SCAQMD thresholds would be exceeded in a region deemed to be in nonattainment, and the project would result in a cumulative contribution to an air quality impact, resulting in a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact to air quality. Cultural Resources Cumulative As it is currently infeasible to determine whether future development under the General Plan Update would result in demolition or removal of historical, archaeological and paleontological resources within the planning area, the incremental contribution of the General Plan Update to these cumulative effects could be cumulatively considerable and the General Plan Update would result in a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact to cultural resources. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Cumulative The topic of GHG emissions is inherently a cumulative impact. While full implementation of the draft GGRP would reduce emissions below reduction targets, as the city of Huntington Beach is not bound by laws or regulations to implement the draft GGRP, there is no certainty that emissions would be reduced to necessary levels. Further, draft GGRP does not analyze GHG emissions associated with specific potential future development projects, and thus forecasted GHG emissions may differ substantially from actual future emissions when implementation of the General Plan Update begins. As such, the General Plan Update would result in a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact due to the generation of GHG emissions and the potential conflict with an applicable plan. Noise Project Specific The General Plan Update would result in an increase in average daily trips (ADT) associated with future development, increasing ambient noise levels across the city due to roadway noise levels, some of which exceed established thresholds. As the increase in ambient noise levels is vehicle-related, there are no feasible mitigation measures that would reduce ambient noise levels and exposure below the identified thresholds and the General Plan Update would result in a project-specific significant and unavoidable noise impact. Further, future development under the General Plan Update has the potential to generate construction vibration levels in exceedance of established thresholds at nearby sensitive receptors (i.e., those within 50 feet of piling activities). Although future development would comply with General Plan Policies N-4.A and N-4.D and implementation of mitigation measure MM4.10-5 would help to reduce impacts, construction vibration levels would not be reduced to a level that would be less than significant. Therefore, the General Plan Update would result in a project-specific (and temporary) significant and unavoidable impact due to construction vibration levels. Page 24 City of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program EIR I Attclnl August 2017 HB -353-Item 10. - 31 4.0 Statement of Overriding Considerations Cumulative The General Plan Update would result in an increase in average daily trips (ADT) associated with future development, increasing ambient noise levels across the city due to roadway noise levels, some of which exceed established thresholds. As the increase in ambient noise levels is vehicle-related, there are no feasible mitigation measures that would reduce ambient noise levels and exposure below the identified thresholds and the General Plan Update would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to noise levels in the region. As such, the General Plan Update would result in a significant and unavoidable cumulative noise impact. The project would expose persons to or generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels due to construction. The project would result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. Utilities and Service Systems Project Specific Given the uncertainty of water supply across the western United States and throughout the state of California, a future supply deficit would result in a significant and unavoidable impact. Until such time as greater confidence in and commitment from water suppliers can be made, the General Plan Update would result in a significant and unavoidable project-specific impact. Cumulative As with the project-specific impact, given the uncertainty of water supply across the western United States and throughout the state of California, a future supply deficit would result in a significant and unavoidable impact. Until such time as greater confidence in and commitment from water suppliers can be made, the General Plan Update would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to water demand, result in a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact. 4.3 Findings The City of Huntington Beach has evaluated all feasible mitigation measures and potential changes to the General Plan Update with respect to reducing the impacts that have been identified as significant and unavoidable (see Chapter 2, CEQA Findings). The City of Huntington Beach has also examined a reasonable range of alternatives to the project as proposed (see Chapter 3, Findings Regarding Project Alternatives). Based on this examination, the City of Huntington Beach has determined that the Full Implementation of the GGRP Alternative is considered to be the environmentally superior alternative. 4.4 Overriding Considerations Specific economic, social, or other considerations outweigh the significant and unavoidable impacts stated above. The reasons for proceeding with the proposed project, notwithstanding the identified significant and unavoidable impacts are described below. ----- Page 25 August 2017 Atkins I City of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program EIR HB -354-Item 10. - 32 Findings of Fact/Statement of Overridtg Considerations 1) Vision: The General Plan Update is a policy document, "guiding future development within the City of Huntington Beach as well as providing guidance to decision makers as they consider proposals for new development and site reuse through the planning horizon of 2040. The General Plan Update goals, policies, and implementation programs define a roadmap for new housing and job growth and provide guidance for decision makers on allocating resources and determining the physical form and character of development." 2) Economic Vitality: By introducing a new Research and Technology land use designation, the General Plan Update will provide for job growth, create additional flexibility for more jobs-rich future use of current industrial properties, while attracting a range of cleaner and greener businesses. 3) Infrastructure: To address the allocation of resources and to serve the potential increase in development, the General Plan Update will also provide a plan for updating water, sewer, drainage, street, and other infrastructure facilities through a comprehensive approach to adequately serve future growth while supporting the existing community. 4) Community Image: The General Plan Update will promote Huntington Beach's unique Surf City image, identity, and culture as a beach community while recognizing the desires of residents to remain an economically vibrant and attractive community with a level of growth balanced against the needs of the community. 5) Redevelopment through revitalization and innovation: The General Plan Update provides the ability for the City of Huntington Beach to revitalize commercial corridors and older industrial areas to allow for necessary economic development while supporting the attraction of innovative, clean, green and industry-forward companies to land and expand their business potential within the community. 6) Protection of residential land uses, particularly single-family residential: By focusing the development of non-residential development (including commercial and industrial) into areas of transformation within the City of Huntington Beach, long-established single family residential neighborhoods can remain protected from encroachment of non-residential uses. Further, the housing needs of the Orange County region and the City of Huntington Beach can be accommodated within consolidated areas developed with varied housing types, efficiently utilizing existing and enhanced infrastructure. This will maintain and enhance the community image of Huntington Beach through the design and construction of high quality development consistent with the existing character. 7) Mobility and Access: The General Plan Update will retrofit and enhance high-traffic corridors to better integrate cyclists, pedestrians, and transit users, with a move towards alternative modes of traditional transport (bus, rail, shuttle) as well as up-and-coming modes of transport such as alternative fuel vehicles. 8) Resource Conservation: With more organized development and guided use of existing resources, such potential impacts to water supply can be monitored and improved for the health and benefit of residents. Further, park lands and open spaces can be protected and retained in place throughout the planning horizon to provide recreational benefits to residents, visitors and school- aged students. A shift toward sustainable resources and self-sufficiency, as outlined in the General Plan Update, will allow for the continuation of the valued way of life within the City of Huntington Beach throughout the planning horizon. Page 26 City of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program EIR I Atkins August 2017 HB -355-Item 10. - 33 EXHIBIT B — NOT ATTACHED REFER TO THE CITY'S WEBSITE: http://www.huntingtonbeachca.gov/government/departme nts/planning/major/general-plan-update.cfm EXHIBIT B HB -356-Item 10. - 34 ua City Council Barbara Delgleize, Mayor Mike Posey, Mayor Pro Tempore Patrick Brenden, Council Member Jill Hardy, Council Member Billy O'Connell, Council Member Erik Peterson, Council Member Lynft Semeta, Council Member Planning Commission Connie Mandic, Chair Bill Crowe, Vice-Chair Dan KaIn-lick, Commissioner John Scandura, Commissioner Michael Brant, Commissioner Pat Garcia, Commissioner Alan Ray, Commissioner Huntington Beach GENERAL DRAFT May-September 2017 General Plan Advisory Committee Dianne Thompson John Ventimiglia Roy Miller Jeff Coffman Robert Schaaf Dan Kalmick Ed Pinchiff Kim Carr John Scanclura Clem Dominguez Leslie Mayes Jessica Budica Robert Sternberg Ed Kerins Bob Wentzel Tim Mulrenan Sue Taylor Alan Walls Darrel P. Arnold CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft , September 2017) HB -357-Item 10. - 35 Task Forces Biological Resources Vic Leipzig Christine Whitcraft Kim Kolpin Hemal Patel Gordon Smith Greg Hickman Circulation Dan Kalmick Janis Mantini Mark Sheldon Ed Mountford David Cicerone Michelle Schuetz Market Trends John Ventimiglia Tony Smale Brett Barnes Steve Dodge Tom Grable Shawn Millbern Sea Level Rise Robert Schaff Hemal Patel Gordon Smith Jack Kirkorn Wes Warvi Mike Van Voorhis Robert Thompson Mark Bixby Ed Pinchiff Jennifer Thomas Pat Brenden Jack Kirkorn Dave Pryor Tim McCormack Sustainability Teresa Howe Toni Bock Lyle Ausk Kee11 Scott Lisack Sue Gordon Kim Nicholson Barbara Delgleize Kathy Millea Dan Kalmick Mike Posey Pat Brenden John McGovern Philip Eddins City Staff Fred Wilson, City Manager Kcn Domor, Assistant City Managcr Scott Hess, AlCPCommunity Development Director Jennifer Villasenor, Planning Manager Consultants to the City Michael Baker International In association with: Atkins Global Moffatt & Nichol Stantec Stanley R. Hoffman Associates Matrix Consulting Group ii City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) HB -358-Item 10. - 36 Internally consistent. The general plan must fully integrate its separate parts and relate them to each other without conflict. All adopted portions of the general plan have equal weight, whether required by state law or not. Long range. State law requires every general plan take a long-term perspective since anticipated development will affect the city and the people who live or work here into the foreseeable future. Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)/Sustainable Communities Strategy: Towards a Sustainable Future provides a comprehensive outline of the regional vision for transportation investments in Southern California through 2040. The RTP was adopted in 2017 and is updated every four years to address regional transportation needs. The General Plan ffittst should be consistent with these regional planning efforts. California Environmental Quality Act The state legislature adopted the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in response to a public mandate for thorough environmental analysis of projects that could affect the environment. The provisions of the law and environmental review procedures are described in the CEQA Statutes and Guidelines (Public Resources Code Sections 21000-21189). A separate Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the General Plan is the instrument for ensuring that environmental impacts of the plan are appropriately assessed and mitigated. Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance The City of Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (Huntington Beach Municipal Code Title 20—Title 25) is the primary implementation tool for the General Plan. The Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance consists of two parts: the official Zoning Map divides the city into zones consistent with General Plan land use designations, and zoning text establishes development standards for each zone including permitted uses, density and intensity of uses, building height, performance standards, and other similar regulations. California Coastal Act The California Coastal Act (California State Public Resources Code, Division 20, Section 30000 et seq.) directs each local government lying wholly or partly within the coastal zone, as defined by the Coastal Act, to prepare a Local Coastal Program for its portion of the City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) HB -359-Item 10. - 37 In some areas of Huntington Beach, intensity and density are regulated by development and design standards rather than FAR limits. These standards, sometimes referenced as form-based codes, may include specifications for setbacks (how far a building may be situated from a street or sidewalk), limits on building height and massing (e.g., size and shape), and requirements to include open space, among others. These standards apply to properties within the planning areas of specific plans, which establish these standards when they are adopted. The maximum allowable development on any individual parcel is governed by the maximum measure of density or intensity permitted for that land use designation applied to the parcel. The General Plan uses these measurements to establish development capacity for each individual parcel and for the planning area at large. The planned (and actual) density or intensity on a parcel is usually less than the maximum, and is influenced by the physical characteristics of a parcel, access and infrastructure limitations, compatibility with other nearby uses, market factors, and past development trends. Use Characteristics Use characteristics refer to the intended character and development pattern of, and uses associated with, a parcel of land. The General Plan uses these use characteristics to classify buildings with similar characteristics into land use designations. To maintain compatible development on and between sites and within neighborhoods, overlay areas, and other defined areas, use characteristics for each designation are intentionally limited. Distribution of Existing Uses Existing land uses in Huntington Beach include a mix of residential, commercial, industrial, mixed use, parks, open space (e.g., wetlands, beaches), oil-related-trees, and public uses. According to a 2014 land use survey, residential development is the predominant use in the city; housing uses constitute about 46-43 percent of all land uses in the planning area. Public uses, primarily comprising public rights-of-way, occupy an additional 63-28 percent of the planning area. Open space, commercial, and industrial development occupies most of the remainder of the planning area. Character of Change Change is a constant process observed over a specified time frame. Between now and 2040, Huntington Beach expects a certain continuing level of change resulting from a number of forces such as population growth, changing demographics, the need to replace aging buildings and improve existing homes, and an ever-changing economy. Physical changes are guided by new development that almost exclusively occurs through private forces based on market demand. The goals and policies provided in this element address areas and locations that would be best suited to accommodate transformational change that supports the Community Vision established in the General Plan. City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, Setpember 2017) HB -360-Item 10. - 38 commercial uses designed Mixed-Use Building FAR range and residential densities are established per specific plan and shown on the Land Use Map for specific areas. The Mixed-Use designation provides for any combination of commercial uses; offices; attached single-family housing, multiple-family housing, and live- work units; institutional uses; cultural facilities; developments including an open space component; and/or civic facilities. Mixing of these uses may occur in a vertical and/or horizontal orientation. Maximum FAR and residential density standards are established within individual specific plan areas. For some specific plans, FAR and density are not prescribed for individual properties or developments. In these cases, the overlaying specific plan includes a maximum development capacity for each land use. Industrial Designations Two land use designations accommodate industrial development in Huntington Beach. To ensure that the city is well positioned for future prosperity, these designations continue to provide jobs in established industries, while also supporting new employment opportunities that accompany emerging technologies and the redevelopment of transitioning industrial areas. One designation accommodates a diverse mix of nonresidential uses. The other accommodates a range of industrial uses that have historically characterized established industrial areas. Research and Technology FAR range: up to 1.0 The Research and Technology designation provides for a wide variety of nonresidential mixed-use development in industrial areas that are undergoing or poised for transformation to support changing employment demand. The designation encourages both employment uses and to accommodate employees while continuing to allow traditional industrial uses such as manufacturing and production. Uses include clean and green manufacturing (e.g., medical devices, solar panels), research and development, technology, warehousing, business parks, professional offices, limited eating and drinking establishments that have an industrial component (e.g., a brewery), restaurants and cafes to accommodate employment uses and surrounding residential neighborhoods entertainment, and similar neighborhood commercial uses. City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) HB -361-Item 10. - 39 Community Subareas In addition to the specific plans identified throughout the planning area, the General Plan also identifies a number of community subareas (Figure LU-4), which are intended to supplement density/intensity standards, use characteristics, and urban design goals and policies provided in this element beyond the guidance offered by the land use designations. Each community subarea has been identified to further the economic goals and guiding principles of the City and to enhance areas where reinvestment or improvements are proposed during the life of the General Plan, but require additional consideration due to their locations and/or environmental sefting. Although some subareas are contained partially or wholly within a specific plan, the description and goals of the subareas in this General Plan do not conflict with the respective specific plans. The following subareas have been identified through the General Plan process or carried over from the previous General Plan. Intersection Enhancement Subareas The following four community subareas represent opportunities to improve neighborhood gateways and commercial corridors within the planning area. Subarea 1: Beach/Warner Intersection Enhancement Encompassing the four corners of the Beach Boulevard and Warner Avenue intersection, within the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan, this 27-acre subarea is designated Mixed-Use and surrounded by Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, Medium High Density Residential, General Commercial, Mixed-Use, and Public uses. The subarea includes buildings of varying scales and architectural styles. The built environment and streetscapes lack a cohesive style. The predominant uses are retail stores, a gas station, a drug store, a car wash, and the 14-story Ocean Tower. The intersection is the subarea's defining feature. Subarea 2: Brookhurst/Adams Intersection Enhancement Encompassing the four corners of the Brookhurst Street and Adams Avenue intersection, this subarea includes 58 acres of commercial use. Surrounded by low-density residential uses to the south and medium high-density residential uses to the north, each corner contains a variety of commercial uses within individual developments. This subarea is characterized by large parking lots separated from the main roadways by landscape buffers. Strip retail and/or large format retailers are located behind the parking areas, and small pad retail buildings are dispersed within portions of the developments. The buildings generally maintain a low profile and the built environment and streetscapes lack a cohesive identity. Existing uses include banks, restaurants, a grocery store, a drugstore, and several small commercial service businesses. Both streets are wide and carry a large volume of traffic through the subarea. City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) 2-17 HB -362-Item 10. - 40 Technology and Innovation Subareas Subarea 5: Gothard Street Centrally located along Gothard Street between Edinger Avenue and Ellis Avenue, the 422-acre Gothard Street Subarea consists of both industrial and research and technology uses, along with a few isolated community service and public use parcels. The subarea is predominantly surrounded by residential development of varying density and character to the east and south, areas identified for mixed commercial and residential development to the north along Edinger Avenue, and Ocean View High School and Central Park to the west. The eastern edge of the subarea abuts the Oak View neighborhood. The Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) right-of-way runs just east of the Gothard Street Subarea, extending from the northern city limits to its endpoint just north of Garfield Avenue. The Gothard Street Subarea is predominantly occupied by smaller manufacturing and warehouse uses and auto repair facilities. Other uses include a lumberyard, some retail and office uses, Rainbow Republic Environmcntal oServices, several gyms/training facilities, Seabreeze Church, and City facilities. The built environment consists of small industrial buildings, isolated offices, and a few industrial parks. Incompatibilities between existing industrial uses in the subarea and residential uses in the Oak View neighborhood present existing environmental justice concerns, as expressed by community members. Given the proximity to residential uses and Ocean View High School, the potential for land use compatibility and environmental justice issues associated with typical industrial use remains an ongoing concern. The City has also designated the abandoned portion of the UPRR rail corridor south of Ellis Avenue for a future transportation corridor use. Potential uses include development of a bicycle or multipurpose trail or an exclusive transit corridor. To support economic development goals to attract new incubator and technology-oriented uses, this subarea introduces the Research and Technology land use designation along with the existing Industrial designation to promote opportunities for new industrial uses that are generally greener, lighter, more mixed with commercial, and more compatible with surrounding sensitive uses. Similar to the Northwest Industrial Subarea, this subarea uses the Research and Technology designation to provide a flexible platform for both industrial and commercial uses that do not fit into the city's historically commercial or industrial areas. While the average building intensity of research and technology use is anticipated to be higher than that of traditional industrial use, the processes and operations of such uses are intended to have fewer potential air quality and noise impacts on surrounding sensitive uses than conventional industrial activities. The maximum development intensity for uses in this subarea ranges from 0.75 FAR for traditional industrial uses to 1.0 FAR for proposed research and technology uses. City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) HB -363-Item 10. - 41 Subarea 6: Northwest Industrial The 760-acre Northwest Industrial Subarea is located in the northwestern portion of the planning area. Comprising the McDonnell Centre Business Park Specific Plan north of Balsa Avenue and industrial and research and technology uses south of Balsa Avenue, the subarea is surrounded by residential uses to the north south, and east, and is bordered by the City of Seal Beach to the west and by Interstate 405 and commercial developments to the east and north. This subarea is anchored by two of Huntington Beach's largest employers (Boeing and C&D/Zodiac Aerospace), as well as a variety of industrial, technology, commercial service, and fitness uses. The built environment ranges from large office buildings and business parks to small commercial pad and industrial spec buildings. Given the proximity to residential uses, the potential for land use compatibility issues within typical industrial uses is a major concern. As a result, this subarea introduces the Research and Technology land use designation in areas adjacent to single-family residential neighborhoods to promote opportunities for new industrial uses that are more compatible with surrounding sensitive uses. The Research and Technology designation provides a flexible platform for both industrial and commercial uses that do not fit into the city's historically commercial or industrial areas. Many new business types require this flexibility as they may need both commercial and industrial components to conduct business. As a result, the Research and Technology designation is a catalyst to spur employment growth and change within this opportunity area, reinforcing the City's desire to meet current and future needs and spur economic growth. The maximum development intensity for uses in this subarea ranges from 0.75 FAR for traditional industrial uses to 1.0 FAR for proposed research and technology uses. Pacific Coast Highway Coastal Corridor Subareas These subareas intend to preserve and enhance the recreational character of the Pacific Coast Highway coastal corridor through the expansion of visitor-serving uses and maintenance of open spaces and recreational opportunities. The intent is to establish distinct commercial nodes, residential communities, and open spaces along its length. Subarea 7: Open Space — Shore The shoreline along Pacific Coast Highway is an amenity that requires a careful balance of preservation and enhancement of the recreational character through the expansion of visitor-serving uses and maintenance/improvement of open spaces and recreational opportunities consistent with policies and programs identified in the Coastal Element. No modifications to development intensities or use characteristics are proposed. However, City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) HB -364-Item 10. - 42 Table LU-1 General Plan Distribution of Land Uses Land Use Designation Residential Acres Percentage of (approximate) Planning Area Low Density 5,653.25 666 3 29.8% Medium Density 1,184.6 6.2% Medium High Density 1,047.51 034.4 5.5% High Density 180.7 0.95% Commercial Neighborhood General Visitor Office Mixed Use 90.9 296.9 165.7 16.3 0.48% 1.6% 0.9% 0.1% Mixed Use 637.9 3.4% Industrial Research and Technology 473.2 2.5% Industrial 654.6 3.5% Open Space and Recreational Conservation 1,661.9 8.8% Park 701.1 3.7% Recreation 237.8 1.3% Water Recreation 238.7 1.3% Shore 434.3 2.3% Public and Community Service Public 835.7 4.4% Public-Semipublic 779.2 4.1% Rights-of-Way 3,681.5 19.4% Total 18,971.8* 100% Source . City of Huntington Beach * Totals may not add up due to rounding Development Capacity la\ 2-24 Table LU-2 identifies the development capacity associated with the planned distribution of land uses described in this element and summarizes the land use distribution and the resulting residential and nonresidential levels of development that can be expected from implementation of land use policies established by the General Plan. As the density and intensity standards for each land use designation are applied to future development projects and land use decisions, properties will gradually transition from one use to another, and land uses and intensities will gradually shift to align with the intent of this Land Use Element. City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) HB -365-Item 10. - 43 City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) 2-25 Table LU-2 General Plan Development Capacity Land Use Designation A cres (approximate) Total Estimated Dwelling Units (2040) Nonresidential Square Feet (2040) Residential 8,066.0 85,360 — Commercial 1,207.7 43 18,442,316 Industrial 1,127.8 — 24,149,404 Open Space & Recreational 3,273.8 — 1,734,283 Public & Rights-of-Way 5,296.4 — 6,084,987 Total (2040) 18,971.8* 85,403 50,410,990 Existing (2014) Totals 18,971.8* 78,175 45,026,070 Change, 2014-2040 — 7,228 5,384,920 Source: City of Huntington Beach Notes. * Totals may not add up due to rounding 1.2040 population estimate Lacer' on the projections prepared for the draft CCRP. This calculation assumed a 2014 population-of 193,489 and a consistent growth rate of 1.7 percent from 2020 to 2040 (in increments-of 5 years). the Orange-County-growth rate is exp 2 Residential units located in the General Commercial designation represent existing residential units on land designated for a range of nonresidential uses where no land use change is anticipated. The Land Use Element does not directly specify a maximum population for Huntington Beach. The maximum possible number of residential units is determined by the different maximum densities allowed for each land use designation and the amount of land area with that designation. However, this maximum number of units is unlikely to be reached because every residential parcel in Huntington Beach would need to be developed to its maximum potential. Because most of the planning area is built out and existing buildings are generally in good condition, these changes will primarily occur within the "transform" areas identified in Figure LU-1. Forecasting assumptions are used to determine the realistic expected number of residential units that Huntington Beach will have when all of the parcels that are reasonably expected to redevelop have already done so. 4 HB -366-Item 10. - 44 for new development to help meet these goals. These opportunity areas were identified because they either have significant concentrations of existing employment, or have future economic growth potential. The City could provide incentives to retain, expand, and capture new businesses, including research and development industries and start-ups. The City should also update the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance to ensure that development regulations and land use controls reflect the City's economic development goals. Research and Technology Uses When assessing Huntington Beach's location, employment, and land use potential, technology manufacturing and technology services industries present high potential for growth. A Research and Technology land use designation within the Northwest Industrial Subarea and the Gothard Street Subarea will accommodate these types of future uses. This designation provides for a wide variety of nonresidential mixed-use development and encourages both employment uses and commercial uses designed to accommodate employees while continuing to allow traditional industrial uses such as manufacturing7 and production. Uses may include clean and green manufacturing and industrial uses (e.g., medical devices, clean air technology), research and development uses, technology, warehousing, business parks, professional offices, limited eating and drinking establishments that have an industrial component (e.g., a brewery), restaurants and cafes to accommodate thc employment uses and surrounding residential neighborhoods entertainment, and similar neighborhood commercial uses. Technology firms will demand newer or refurbished multi-tenant buildings that offer modern, high speed and high bandwidth infrastructure. Therefore, the City will also focus on encouraging developingment of a strong inventory of adequately improved and competitive industrial buildings within these districts that provide the resources and technological capacity desired by businesses in this industry. Infrastructure Along with bandwidth in facilities, adequate infrastructure across all services is also important to support new industry growth. The City must invest in water, sewer, drainage, street, and other infrastructure updates to serve future generations of residents, businesses, and visitors. There is much to be done to achieve long-term fiscal stability and to bring public services and capital infrastructure back to acceptable levels, which were impacted by the economic recession and loss of redevelopment funding. The City will continue to maintain and expand its Capital Projects Reserve for the repair and construction of city infrastructure. New infrastructure projects will be coordinated using a comprehensive systems approach that balances serving existing community members and provides adequate capacity for future growth. City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) HB -367-Item 10. - 45 Quality of Life Huntington Beach currently has an excellent quality of life. Its desirable residential neighborhoods, world-class beaches and recreation areas, and safe environment all contribute to a city that is a great place to live, work, and play. Improving the jobs-housing balance by planning for a range of housing types in appropriate focus areas in conjunction with industrial and commercial expansion is a key component of ensuring and maintaining the city's quality of life. Fiscal Responsibility Without redevelopment, new, creative, and innovative ideas to stimulate business and development will have to be implemented. Resolving these issues and many others will influence the level of net revenues that the City will have available to fund enhanced levels of service and to maintain and build new infrastructure necessary to support a strong, vibrant economy. General Fund costs will now be subject to a fiscal impact analysis since they are so important to the fiscal health of the community. As part of this plan, the economic development recommendations will be tested using a fiscal impact model to provide guidance in the development of effective land use goals and policies that facilitate a strong local economy and long-term fiscal stability. As economic recovery is vulnerable to global, national, and state forces beyond the City's control, the City is committed to continue on the path of fiscal conservatism. Tourism and Hospitality An estimated 30 percent of jobs in Huntington Beach are tourism-based. Tourism is one of the city's competitive economic advantages, and continuing to foster the health of this sector is important to the overall strength and diversity of the city's economy. With over 10 miles of contiguous, accessible coastline, Huntington Beach hosts 4)veF-1-6 millions of visitors annually. Many of these visitors stay in one of the city's nearly 2,000 hotel and motel rooms, most of which are located along the coast. However, the current level of demand for overnight accommodations is not fully met within the city, leading to economic leakage and lost tax revenues. Therefore, identifying prime locations along the coastline as well as in other areas that provide a high-quality visitor experience remains an economic development priority. The City will continue to work with existing and future operators to update or expand existing overnight accommodations and visitor-serving facilities, and develop new accommodations and facilities to meet future demands. To complement this strategy, the City will also continue to expand and enhance natural resources, open spaces, and recreation amenities to retain or improve its position among the top tourism destinations in Southern California. City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) HB -368-Item 10. - 46 Land Use and Urban Design Issues, Goals, and Policies The land use and urban design issues addressed in this element include: • Coordinating development patterns and protecting community character • Addressing interactions between neighborhoods and nonresidential attractions • Providing a range of well-maintained housing types • Protecting and adaptively reusing industrial areas • Maintaining flexible long-term school capacity • Fostering the identity of individual neighborhoods and community subareas • Maintaining historic character and architectural diversity in Downtown Coordinating Development Patterns and Protecting Community Character Much of the planning area has been developed, and many of the remaining undeveloped parcels are committed to development by specific plans and development agreements, or are preserved for open space. Consequently the fundamental patterns, distribution, and form of development has been established. However, protecting the traditional beach and the successful "Surf City" brand and feel of Huntington Beach is a community priority. Continuing to preserve historic and cultural resources related to that "Surf City" identity, such as older neighborhoods;_-aftel-historic buildings, structures, and monuments: Native American. pioneer settlement, agricultural development: and historical periods including prehistory settlements, trading with Catalina, Civil War, World Wars, veterans' history etc. is an important step in retaining Huntington Beach's unique culture. Goal LU-1. New commercial, industrial, and residential development is coordinated to ensure that the land use pattern is consistent with the overall goals and needs of the community. Policies A. Ensure that development is consistent with the land use designations presented in the Land Use Map, including density, intensity, and use standards applicable to each land use designation. B. Ensure new development supports the protection and maintenance of environmental and open space resources. C. Support infill development, consolidation of parcels, and adaptive reuse of existing buildings. City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) HB -369-Item 10. - 47 Ensure that new development projects are of compatible proportion, scale, and character to complement adjoining uses. Goal LU-2. New development preserves and enhances a distinct Surf City identity. culture, and character in neighborhoods, corridors, and centers. Policies A. Ensure that new development and reuse projects protect existing Surf City culture and identity and preserve and recognize unique neighborhoods and areas as the building blocks of the community. B. Ensure that new and renovated structures and building architecture and site design are context-sensitive, creative, complementary of the city's beach culture, and compatible with surrounding development and public spaces. C. Distinguish neighborhoods and subareas by character and appearance and strengthen physical and visual distinction, architecture, edge and entry treatment, landscape, streetscape, and other elements. Evaluate the potential for enhancement of neighborhood entrances and perimeter walls. D. Maintain and protect residential neighborhoods by avoiding encroachment of incompatible land uses. E. Intensify the use and strengthen the role of public art, architecture, landscaping, site design, and development patterns to enhance the visual image of Huntington Beach. Addressing Interactions Between Neighborhoods and Attractions Huntington Beach contains several well-defined places characterized by community activity and a high level of identity. These include the pedestrian-oriented Downtown area, the beach, Central Park (the city's primary recreation and cultural center), the Bolsa Chica Wetlands, neighborhoods such as Huntington Harbour and Sunset Beach, and the comparatively new Bella Terra area. Most other areas have developed as principally auto- oriented environments that pose a challenge for neighborhood interactions. Future planning should provide multiple ways for neighborhoods and attractions to interact through non-auto travel modes, drawing on existing and expanded bicycle and pedestrian facilities as well as enhanced transit facilities. Goal LU-3. Neighborhoods and attractions are connected and accessible to all residents, employees, and visitors. Policies A. Ensure that future development and reuse projects are consistent with the Land Use Map to provide connections between existing neighborhoods and city attractions. City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) 2-33 HB -370-Item 10. - 48 Goal LU-5. Industrial businesses provide employment opportunities for residents, supporting the local economy. Policies A. Support and attract new businesses in the city's industrial areas. B. Encourage dean, less intensive industrial development in areas identified in the planning area. C. Ensure proposed development and uses in industrial areas contribute to the City's economic development objectives and do not minimize existing uses. D. Explore opportunities to optimize use of underutilized or underperforming industrial land that is sensitive to surrounding uses, and to introduce new industrial uses that create beth jobs-aRd-Relisifit, E. Encourage and assist existing and potential industrial owners to update, modernize, and expand their industrial properties. Maintaining Flexible Long-Term School Capacity Much of Huntington Beach was built during a time when demand for school facilities was high to accommodate the needs of the post-World War II baby boom. Today, demand for school facilities is experiencing a relative decline. Some schools in Huntington Beach are at or above capacity while others are under capacity depending on the school or district. Short-term demand for residential, commercial, and open space uses is competing with the ability to retain these sites for longer-term school use. Nonoperational schools are being leased for other uses, while other schools are overcrowded. Goal LU-6. Neighborhood school facilities sites adapt over time to meet the changing needs of the community. Policies A. Consistent with state law explorcConsidcr preferred alternatives with school districts for that maximize public benefit and access to recreation and open spaces, as well as other uses for surplus for future usc of school faciliticasites should a closure occur. B. Continue to consult with school districts in connection with any City-related or school district—relatedduring planning and environmental review of proposed non-education surplus school site rcusc _projects. C. In consultation with school districts7 and consistent with state law, encourage Consider flexible interim use options to maximize existing use of school sp-aeessites while aeeeminedatiftgaddressing future community end-sell-eel-needs. City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) HB -371-Item 10. - 49 Policies A. Reinforce Downtown as the city's historic center and as a pedestrian and bicycle-oriented village with commercial, entertainment, and recreation uses to meet the needs of residents and visitors. B. Encourage development of underused parcels with a mix of uses and unique architecture. C. Ensure new development reflects the Downtown's historical structures and theme. D. Reinforce the unique Downtown character and visual distinctions, architecture, and streetscape. Economic Development Issues, Goals, and Policies The economic development issues addressed in this element include: • Capitalizing on location with technology infrastructure • Retaining, expanding, and capturing businesses • Capturing sales tax revenues • Encouraging renovation and revitalization of commercial and industrial areas • Adapting to a changing economy • Enhancing tourism, hospitality, and the high tech industry Capitalizing on Location with Technology Infrastructure The City must continue to capitalize on its location and reputation as an advantageous and competitive business location by encouraging expandftsion of state-of-the-art technology infrastructure related to communications, media, and computing systems that existing and new businesses can cost-effectively use. Goal LU-9. Industrial uses provide job opportunities for existing and future residents, as well as the surrounding region, while generating revenue for the city. Policies A. Establish technology or innovation districts, such as the Gothard Street Subarea and the Northwest Industrial Subarea, where technology infrastructure is provided specifically to support existing and new businesses. B. Support the provision of Pfeekie--technology infrastructure and services to supply necessary technological and communication tools for existing and new industry and businesses. City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) 2-37 HB -372-Item 10. - 50 C. Provide opportunities for new start-up businesses to develop innovative products and services in a business incubator environment. D. Support the ability for future industrial uses to accommodate new flexible work programs anci-seheelti-les. Retaining, Expanding, and Capturing Businesses The city's business sector includes a sizable share of research, development, and start- up businesses. However, there is an opportunity to attract more of these businesses to locate within the city and thrive, thus increasing the average wage rate of workers and improving the jobs-housing balance. Largely concentrated in the Northwest Industrial Subarea and the Gothard Street Subarea, most of these jobs are associated with technology manufacturing or technology services. Goal LU-10. The City aggressively retains and enhances existing industrial businesses and technology businesses while attracting new firms to the city. Policies A. Provide incentives to retain, expand, and capture new businesses, including research and development industries and start-ups. B. Promote the creation of jobs with increasing wage opportunities within the community. C. In partnership with regional, state, and federal agencies, provide workforce programs that facilitate workforce diversity in the city through expanded labor force training and hiring practices. D. Maximize the economic development services provided by the City to existing and prospective businesses and industries (research and dcyclopmcnt, grecn technology, etc.). Capturing Sales Tax Revenues The City must monitor taxable sales trends by key locations and work to reverse leakage trends in retail sales, with the objective of recapturing sales tax revenues that are leaving the city, by promoting targeted development and expansion of commercial uses that serve Huntington Beach and the surrounding region. Goal LU-11. Commercial land uses provide goods and services to meet regional and local needs. Policies A. Encourage a variety of commercial uses that cater to local and regional demand to create an environment that meets resident needs and increases the capture of sales tax revenues. City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) HB -373-Item 10. - 51 B. Encourage new businesses to locate on existing vacant or underutilized commercial properties where these properties have good locations and accessibility. C. Maximize the economic development services provided by the City to existing and prospective businesses and industries (breweries/tasting rooms, on soles/distribution, e. Encouraging Renovation and Revitalization of Commercial and Industrial Areas There is a marked difference in development quality and property maintenance between older commercial/industrial corridors and newer commercial/industrial and mixed-use centers. Goal LU-12. Commercial and industrial corridors throughout the planning area are renovated and revitalized. Policies A. Establish in the Urban Design Guidelines that nonresidential buildings and sites be designed to be consistent with and use low-impact design techniques. B. Encourage renovation and revitalization of deteriorating and struggling nonresidential areas and corridors, particularly commercial locations. C. Expand shuttle services and pedestrian linkages between adjoining business areas, particularly along the coast, where a greater flow of local shoppers and visitors is encouraged. D. Seek opportunities to encourage the creation of business improvement districts or other econom i c development strategies where coordination and financing of mutually shared, enhanced services can increase business potential for all. Adapting to a Changing Economy As with the oil industry in the early 20th century, many new industries are getting their start in Huntington Beach in the 21st century. However, in the past decade, the way businesses operate has changed. Employees are looking for alternatives to long commutes, employers are considering ways to attract new talent, and communities desire greater workforce diversity. Goal LU-13. The city provides opportunities for new businesses and employees to ensure a high quality of life and thriving industry. Policies A. Encourage expansion of the range of goods and services provided to accommodate the needs of all residents and the market area. City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) / 2-39 HB -374-Item 10. - 52 B. Capture emerging industries such as, but not limited to, "knowledge-based industries and research and development firms. C. Support development of new commercial and industrial projects and retrofits of existing buildings. D. Improve transit and other alternative transportation options, including shuttles and safe bicycle routes, for employees who live and work in the community. 97E. Do not preclude future mobility technologies in land use planning. Enhancing Tourism and Hospitality Anchored by the beach, Pier, natural resources, and cultural amenities, Huntington Beach is a world-renowned tourist destination. Annual events like the US Open of Surfing and Surf City Half Marathon draw hundreds of thousands of visitors. Huntington Beach is also enjoying an increase in conventions and meetings, and has expanded the number of available hotel rooms along Pacific Coast Highway. A limited number of other lower-cost lodging options are available, and ongoing provision of a variety of lodging options to ensure visitors of all income levels can enjoy the coast is a top priority of the Coastal Act. A healthy tourist and hospitality economy also requires a robust service economy. Goal LU-I4. Huntington Beach continues to attract visitors and provides a variety of attractions and accommodations during their stay. Policies A. Encourage expansion of the range and location of available lodging for both tourist and business visitors. B. Encourage both coastal and inland visitor-serving uses to offer a wide spectrum of opportunities for residents and visitors. C. Improve the availability of affordable housing and accessible transportation options for service workers. D. Facilitate the provision of transit and bicycling linkages between the various tourist destinations which help encourage local residents and visitors to minimize the use of automobiles. 87E. Support a concert/entertainment venue within the Gcity. City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) HB -375-Item 10. - 53 Issues, Goals, and Policies The circulation issues addressed in this element include: • Maintaining adequate level of service • Providing adequate Downtown and beach parking • Enhancing regional transit • Increasing local transit options • Ensuring mobility options for all users • Enhancing bicycle, pedestrian, equestrian, and waterway options • Protecting and developing scenic corridors • Providing for alternative fuel vehicles and infrastructure • Ensuring access for emergency vehicles Maintaining Adequate Level of Service While the City has generally maintained adequate levels of service over time, congestion occurs at some key intersections and on several arterial roadways during commute hours, on the weekends, and during the tourist season. The City does not control operations on some roadways, such as Beach Boulevard and Pacific Coast Highway, as they are under Ca!trans jurisdiction. Maintaining adequate levels of service enhances quality of life for Huntington Beach residents, promotes traffic safety, and improves the ability of emergency service providers to respond to emergency situations. Goal CIRC-la. The circulation system supports existing, approved, and planned land uses while maintaining a desired level of service and capacity on streets and at critical intersections. Goal CIRC-lb. The implementation of citywide systems and driver applications, such as vehicle detection, traffic signal coordination, collision avoidance systems, traffic calming measures, and emergency or traffic notification systems, creates a quality circulation system. Goal C1RC-1c. Through ongoing evaluation of jurisdiction, efficient transportation management provides the highest level of safety, service, and resources. Policies A. Develop and maintain the city street network arid pursue completion of missing roadway links identified on the Arterial Highway Plan (Figure CIRC-2) arid standard roadway cross City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, Septembert 2017) 3-29 HB -376-Item 10. - 54 sections (Figure CIRC-1), including appropriate roadway widths, medians, and bicycle lanes. B. Maintain the following adopted performance standards for citywide level of service for traffic-signal-controlled intersections during peak hours. a. Locations with specific characteristics identified as critical intersections: LOS E (ICU to not exceed 1.00) b. Principal Intersections: LOS D (0.81-0.90 ICU) c. Secondary Intersections: LOS C (0.71-0.80 ICU) C. Monitor the capacity of principal intersections. When principal intersections approach or have reached unacceptable levels of service, consider elevating the priority of Capital Improvement Program (CIP) projects that reduce traffic congestion at these intersections. D. Require additional right-of-way and restrict parking on segments adjacent to principal intersections to allow for future intersection improvements and turning movements as needed to satisfy performance standards. E. Maintain compliance with the OCTA Congestion Management Program or any subsequent replacement program. F. Require development projects to provide circulation improvements to achieve stated City goals and to mitigate to the maximum extent feasible traffic impacts to adjacent land uses and neighborhoods as well as vehicular conflicts related to the project. G. Limit driveway access points, require driveways to be wide enough to accommodate traffic flow from and to arterial roadways, and establish mechanisms to consolidate driveways where feasible and necessary to minimize impacts to the smooth, efficient, and controlled flow of vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians. H. Protect residential neighborhoods from adverse conditions associated with cut-through and nonresidential traffic. Pursue technological innovations and research to ensure Huntington Beach continues to inveet in has the best available traffic management systems. J. Evaluate Investigate current jurisdictional control of roadways and determine where adjustments may be made in the future. Providing Adequate Downtown and Beach Parking Parking can be a challenge in Downtown throughout the year, but especially during the high tourist season and special events. Street parking and Downtown parking structures are the current primary parking options. While drivers circulate looking for available 3-30 City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) HB -377-Item 10. - 55 3-33 Ensuring Mobility Options for All Users Traditional circulation planning tends to focus on travel by cars, many times at the expense of other modes of transportation, such as walking, biking, train, and transit. The Circulation Plan is intended to accommodate and encourage these other modes of travel. In addition to carrying traffic between destinations, streets are integral to neighborhoods and provide places for people to gather and recreate. The City's objective is to balance the many competing roles that streets play in the lives of residents, businesses, and visitors. Goal C1RC-5. The City's active transportation system integrates seamlessly with transit and vehicle circulation as part of a Complete Streets system. Policies A. Maximize use of transportation demand management strategies to reduce total vehicle miles traveled and improve regional air quality. B. Develop Complete Streets that create functional places meeting the needs of pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, wheelchair users, and motorists. Provide safe, accessible, and connected multimodal routes, especially along popular and arterial routes. C. Coordinate with neighboring jurisdictions to ensure that bicycle routes connect to and are consistent with routes in adjacent jurisdictions. D. Maintain and repair bicycle lanes and sidewalks as necessary to expand use and safety. E. Improve citywide awareness of pedestrian and bicycle safety. F. Include low-impact stormwater system design techniques in Complete Streets designs (i.e., natural stormwater retention basins, curb cuts to planter areas for stormwater management),.-afitl- F7G. sSupport alternative fuel vehicles where feasible. Enhancing Bicycle, Pedestrian, Equestrian, and Waterway Options The existing development pattern in Huntington Beach limits the ability in some areas of the city to commute via bicycle or by walking, and could result in limiting access to goods, services, schools, and parks and recreation resources. It is generally considered challenging and unpleasant to cross or travel along major roadways as a bicyclist or pedestrian. Enhancements to the roadway system through Complete Streets serve the needs of all users equally and can increase the viability of bicycling and walking for both commute and local service trips. At the same time, some portions of Huntington Beach (e.g., Downtown/Main Street) are dominated by pedestrians during the peak tourist season and would benefit from improvements that balance the needs of other users. City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, Septembert 2017) HB -378-Item 10. - 56 Goal CIRC-7. Designated scenic corridors protect and enhance visual quality and scenic views. Policies A. Establish and implement landscape and urban streetscape design themes for landscape corridors, minor urban scenic corridors, and major urban scenic corridors that create a distinct character for each, enhancing each corridor's surrounding land uses. B. Require that any bridges, culverts, drainage ditches, retaining walls, and other ancillary scenic and landscape corridor elements be compatible and architecturally consistent with surrounding development and established design guidelines, to the greatest extent practicable. C. Require that slopes and earthen berms along scenic corridors be landscaped consistent with design objectives and standards. D. Provide landscaped medians and sidewalk treatments in accordance with City standards within major and primary arterial streets designated as landscape corridors, and continue to require the construction of landscaped medians and sidewalk treatments in new developments. E. Require that development projects adjacent to a designated scenic corridor include open spaces, plazas, gardens, and/or landscaping that enhance the corridor and create a buffer between the building site and the roadway. F. Continue to locate new and relocated utilities underground within scenic corridors to the greatest extent possible. All other utility features shall be placed and screened to minimize visibility. Providing for Alternative Fuel Vehicles and Infrastructure Increasing the use of alternative fuels (e.g., natural gas, hydrogen, fuel cells) in traditional vehicles and increasing the use of electric vehicles represent important strategies to maintain mobility while reducing air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. Goal C1RC-8. Planning and infrastructure support electric and alternative fuel vehicles through power or fueling stations and other means. Policies A. Encourage inclusion of power stations and alternative fuels at traditional gas stations. City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, Septembert 2017) HB -379-Item 10. - 57 B. Plan for conversion of all government fleet vehicles to alternative fuel or electricity. Ensuring Access for Emergency Vehicles Ensuring the ability of the City's emergency services to respond to emergency situations is crucial to the community's public safety. Congestion may impede the ability of the City's emergency services to respond in a timely manner. It is important to implement new devices and programs to improve the ability of emergency personnel and vehicles to respond to calls for assistance and direct residents during emergencies. Goal CIRC-9. The circulation system is prepared for emergency vehicle response by reducing congestion or other roadway- and traffic-related impediments which can slow response times. Policies A. Provide a circulation system that helps to meet emergency response time goals and incorporates technology infrastructure to clear intersections during emergency response events. B. Complete transportation improvements that assist in meeting the response goals for emergency services. C. Provide a system of primary, major, and secondary arterials that can be used for evacuating persons during emergencies or for ingress when emergency response units are needed. City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) HB -380-Item 10. - 58 4-1 I- ' gni° PUB SalUIOSall IBPIOUIUOJRU IV. Environmental Resources and Conservation Introduction and Purpose Huntington Beach benefits tremendously from surrounding natural resources, which include City parks, wetlands, mineral resources, biological diversity, clean air and water, and the community's world-famous beach and shoreline. These resources contribute substantially to the local economy, provide rest and recreational opportunities, and help support public health. In order to continue to benefit from these resources, Huntington Beach must protect and enhance them when possible while still allowing for economic growth. a—elthe El—te Huntington Beach for generations to come. Scope and Content The Environmental Resources and Conservation Element establishes goals and policies to protect and conserve Huntington Beach's environmental resources, including open space and beaches, and addresses air quality and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, water quality, biological diversity, and mineral resources. City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) HB -381-Item 10. - 59 Habitat Areas Though most of Huntington Beach is urbanized, several open space areas remain that are capable of supporting habitat for special-status species. These areas are managed by a variety of agencies and organizations that have different levels of jurisdiction and authority over the resources present. Several established habitat areas also support other uses requiring routine maintenance (e.g., beaches, parks). Table ERC-5 and Figure ERC-4 identify these areas and the organization(s) responsible for managing them. Table ERC-5 Habitat Areas Area Acres Management Organization Within City Limits I Outside City Limits Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve (includes eucalyptus grove and Warner Pond 1,334 California Department of Fish and VVildlife ESHAs) Bolsa Chica Basin State Marine 450 California Fish and Game Commission Conservation Area Bolsa Bay State Marine Conservation 45 California Fish and Game Commission Area Goodell Property 1 Property owner Unincorporated Open Space Areas 57 Various agencies and organizations Bolsa Chica State Beach 130 California Department of Parks and Recreation Brightwater Conservation Area (includes 5-acre eucalyptus ESHA) 34 Brightwater Homeowners Association Brightwater Environmental Protection Area 2 Brightwater Homeowners Association** Flood Control Channels 368 Orange County Flood Huntington Beach Wetlands 172* Huntington Beach Wetlands Conservancy Huntington City Beach (City Beach and Sunset Beach) 122 City of Huntington Beach Huntington Harbour and associated shorelines 253 City of Huntington Beach and Orange County Huntington State Beach (includes Least Tern Natural Preserve) 144 California Department of Parks and Recreation Waterfront Wetland 3 City of Huntington Beach City parks and open spaces (includes open space areas, and parts of Central, Bartleft, and Norma Gibbs Parks) 256 City of Huntington Beach Seagate-created Wetland Area 5 Seagate Homeowners Association Shea Parkside Property ESHA 3 Future Homeowners Association Shea Parkside Property Wetlands/Buffer 16 Future Homeowners Association * Huntington Beach Wetlands acreage includes Newland Marsh, which was owned by Caltrans at the time this plan was prepared. "* Presently the developer manages the Brightwater Conservation Area and Environmental Protection Area; the Brightwater HOA will ultimately take over this responsibility. Note: Acreages cannot be totaled, as several established habitat areas overlap. 4-20\ City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) HB -382-Item 10. - 60 The City faces numerous key challenges to maintaining and protecting habitat including a complicated regulatory environment, numerous overlapping stakeholder groups, ecological degradation through water and air pollution, invasive pest plants, and changing climate conditions. This element establishes policies to collaboratively maintain, manage, and expand, when possible, important habitat lands, including the coast, wetlands, bay, and inland areas. Energy Resources be used as a transportation fuel for electric vehicles. Natural gas can be used to generate electricity and to heat water and indoor spaces. Electricity in the planning area is supplied by Southern California Edison, while natural gas is supplied by the Southern California Gas Company. Table ERC-6 shows current and forecasted electricity and natural gas use in Huntington Beach. Table ERC-6 Current and Forecasted Energy Use 2005 2012 2020* 2040* tkA l Energy comes in numerous forms, including chemical fuels such as coal and oil, heat energy, and nuclear energy. This element focuses on electricity and natural gas (a form of chemical energy), which are two of the most common kinds of energy used in Huntington Beach. Electrical energy is used to run innumerable appliances, devices, and pieces of technology, including lights, computers, and air conditioners. It can also Residential electricity use (kWh) Nonresidential electricity use (kWh) Total electricity use (kWh) Residential natural gas use (therms) Nonresidential natural gas use (therms) Total natural gas use (therms) 485,753,410 487,243,550 490,786,730 494,662,470 726,213,200 703,114,370 743,073,060 791,265,320 1,211,966,610 1,190,357,920 1,233,859,780 1,285,927,790 31,156,530 30,363,590 30,735,350 31,796,430 9,328,020 10,210,450 10,857,240 11,811,700 40,484,550 40,574,040 41,592,590 43,608,120 Source: Southern California Edison: Southern California Gas Company 2020 and 2040 values are projections without locally driven efforts to reduce energy use. 4-22 City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) HB -383-Item 10. - 61 Water ources _2 0 20 " 30 2035 2040 area is generally located along the uplifted mesa north of Talbert Avenue, west of Beach Boulevard, and east of Huntington Harbour. Active mining no longer occurs at these sites, and new uses have been introduced, which deter future mining activities. Figure ERC-5 shows MRZ classifications within the Huntington Beach planning area. Water Resources Water Supply The City provides water to over 50,000 service connections. Thrcc agcncics work togethcr to providc watcr to Huntington Bcach: tThe Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (Metropolitan) andv the Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC)_7 provide water to Huntington Beach. The City's water comes from a combination of groundwater (approximately three-fourths) and imported water resources (approximately one-fourth) purchased from Metropolitan through the MVVDOC. Metropolitan's principal sources of water are the Colorado River and the Lake Oroville watershed in Northern California, and this water is treated at the Robert B. Diemer Filtration Plant located north of Yorba Linda. The Orange County Water District (OCWD) manages the groundwater in the Orange County Basin and allocates a proportion of that groundwater for Huntington Beach. According to the City's 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, total water demand in Huntington Beach is forecasted to increase by roughly 8 percent from 2020 to 2040, with the increase being met using a combination of groundwater sources and imported water based on the OCWD-established Basin Pumping Percentage. Table ERC-7 identifies expected planning area retail demands (i.e., the amount of water used by residential and nonresidential water customers, and unaccounted water loss) through 2040. Table ERC-7 City of Huntington Beach Planned Water Retail Demand (2020-2040) Total (AFY) 28,090 30,153 30,360 30,352 30,396 Note . AFY = acre-feet per year OSall 1W it 110 IA As a result of recent drought conditions since 2012, water conservation efforts significantly reduced the city's water consumption from 2011 to 2015 by over 17 percent, from around 30,000 acre-feet to around 25,000 acre-feet. Orange County Water District's Groundwater Replenishment System Facility takes highly treated wastewater that would otherwise be discharged into the Pacific Ocean, further purifies it, and pumps it into seawater barriers and groundwater recharge basins. City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) HB -384-Item 10. - 62 Table ERC-8 2010 California 303(d) and TMDL Priority o 0 0 w iii c C co mi 2 := CZ (I) 0 CD Water 0 Body o ›.. _a 0, " (12 2 c • eT) o .c tr.) • ^`• ,.. 4-A -"•• C M I (2,) ca 4., (2 . (:, WI a ) itu c co C = I Pollutants/ Stressors Source Unknown Priority 2 Low Enterococci Indicator Bacteria Unknown Low Chlordane Unknown Low X Copper Unknown Low X 1 Lead Unknown Low X' Nickel Unknown Low X l Pathogens Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers Low Dieldrin Unknown Low X X1 X PCBs Unknown Low Ammonia Unknown Low pH Unknown Low Sediment Toxicity Unknown Low X = Listed on the 2006 C ean Water Act Section 303(d) List of Water Quality Limited 1 = Listing made by US Environmental Protection Agency. 2 = Priority determined by "estimated TMDL completion data listed in the State Water Resources Control Board's 2010 Integrated Report on Water Quality. All pollutants and water bodies on this list have an estimated completion date of 2019 or later, indicating "low" priority. The City faces numerous water supply and water quality problems. Water supply concerns include continued groundwater overdraft conditions, future imported water costs and allocations, continuing drought conditions, State Water Resources Control Board water use reductions, and the financial and ecological costs associated with developing alternative supplies. Water quality issues include pollution associated with local and upstream urban runoff and sensitive ecological conditions. In this Environmental Resources and Conservation Element, the City addresses these issues with goals, policies, and programs that require water conservation, pursue recycled and alternative water resources, and reduce local water pollution in new and existing development. City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) HB -385-Item 10. - 63 rir vuronmen a esoure Goal ERC-1. Adequately sized and located parks meet the changing recreational and leisure needs of existing and future residents. Policies A. Maintain or exceed the current park per capita ratio of 5.0 acres per 1,000 persons, including the beach in the calculations. B. Seek opportunities to develop and acquire additional parks and open space in underserved areas where needed, including pocket (mini) parks, dog parks, athletic fields, amphitheaters, gardens, and shared facilities. C. Distribute future developed park and recreational sites to equitably serve neighborhood and community needs while balancing budget constraints. D. Require all park improvement projects to consider ways to improve access to park facilities by foot and bicycle. E. Continue to locate future neighborhood parks adjacent to elementary schools with independent street frontage when possible. F. Continue to balance and maintain a mix of recreational focused and passive and natural environment areas that preserve and protect special—status species within open spaces. G. Develop a comprehensive trails network linking hiking, biking, and equestrian trails to parks, beaches, recreation facilities, and open spaces both within and outside the planning area. H. Administer the City's open space program in a manner that supports lands, resources, and services provided in regional parks, open spaces, and conservation plans. Providing Recreation Programs and Services to Meet Community Needs The aging of the general population and resulting increases in the senior population will increase demand for senior services. The city's senior and elderly population would greatly benefit from additional and accessible social services to serve their needs. Meanwhile, demand for programs for families, children, and other components of the community remain high. Goal ERC-2. Diverse recreational and sports facilities provide active and educational opportunities that meet the changing needs of residents and visitors of all ages. 4-30 City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) HB -386-Item 10. - 64 Policies A. Enhance and expand accessible arid affordable recreation programs and sports facilities, providing new programs and adaptive facilities that respond to changing community demographics and needs. B. Ensure that buildings, equipment, fields, and other recreation amenities are in full use and capable of accommodating changing program demands. C. Partner with neighboring cities and the County to provide access to a wider range of recreational services. D. Encourage and coordinate with private commercial recreational businesses to provide recreational services and facilities that may not otherwise be offered by the City. E. Partner with school districts to offer after-hours recreational activities at both open and closed school sites. -E7F. Work with the school districts to encourage after school hours access to playgrounds and playing fields on school properties. Managing the Beach, Parks, and Recreation to Accommodate Diverse Recreational Needs The beaches and adjacent marine environments provide habitat for numerous species, including federally listed birds that use the beach for nesting. While important biologically, coastal dunes, beach, the surf zone, and the off-shore areas are also recognized as important cultural amenities. Beach management practices should improve the sustainability of extensive recreational beach use while protecting sensitive natural resources. Goal ERC-3. Maintain the recreational and cultural identity of the beach while improving and enhancing the overall habitat value of coastal areas. Policies A. Maintain the beach and ocean as natural recreational resources, not only for the city but also for the Southern California region. B. Maintain the current high level of recreational access to the coast and its recreational facilities and continue to provide resources that improve accessibility to the beach for all users. C. Consider devoting certain portions of the beach to different preferred recreational uses while maintaining access for all users and meeting the recreation needs of both visitors and residents. D. In areas known to be utilized by special-status species, encourage low-intensity uses that provide public access and passive recreational resources such as picnic/observation areas, nature trails, peripheral bike paths, and informational signs/displays. City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) LI 4-31 HB -387-Item 10. - 65 Reducing Air Pollution Air quality in the South Coast Air Basin has generally been improving for a long period of time due to cleaner vehicles, technological advances, and increased regulatory oversight. Continued improvements in air quality will help improve public health and increase the overall quality of life in Huntington Beach. The community should work to support cleaner air while addressing challenges posed by population growth and climate change, which could stall or reverse these hard-fought gains in air quality. Goal ERC-4. Air quality in Huntington Beach continues to improve through local actions and interagency cooperation. Policies A. Continue to cooperate with the South Coast Air Quality Management District and other regional, state, and national agencies to enforce air quality standards and improve air quality. B. Continue to require construction projects to carry out best available air quality mitigation practices, including use of alternative fuel vehicles and equipment as feasible. C. Enforce maximum idling time regulations for off-road equipment. D. Require grading, landscaping, and construction activities to minimize dust while using as little water as possible. E. Continue to explore and implement strategies to minimize vehicle idling, including traffic signal synchronization and roundabouts. F. Minimize exposure of sensitive land uses to toxic air contaminants by locating new pollutant sources away from sensitive uses and disproportionately affected communities and by encouraginge existing pollutant sources to reduce emissions when changes to existinq operations or permits are proposed. Meeting Greenhouse Gas Reduction Goals As there are numerous sources of GHG emissions, a variety of strategies are available to help local communities reduce these emissions. Establishing and meeting GHG emissions reduction goals will help to decrease the threat posed by climate change, while providing multiple benefits to Huntington Beach community members. Efforts to reduce GHG emissions can help save money for residents and businesses, enhance the local economy, improve public health, support improved air quality, and conserve water and other natural resources. The goals and policies below establish emissions reductions goals and create a high-level framework for GHG reduction efforts. Policies that support GHG emission reductions are located elsewhere in this element, as well as in the Circulation and Public Services and Infrastructure Elements. Specific strategies, anticipated reductions, and associated action items are addressed in the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program. City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) HB -388-Item 10. - 66 Goal ERC-6. Various agencies that oversee habitat areas and wildlife corridors, including but not limited to parks, beaches, coastal dunes, marine waters, and wetlands, coordinate decision-making and management to ensure on orn protection of resources. Policies A. Create, improve, and/or acquire areas that enhance habitat resources and identify, prioritize, and restore as habitat key areas of land that link fragmented wildlife habitat, as funding and land are available. B. Support land acquisition, conservation easements, or other activities undertaken by landowners to create and preserve habitat linkages that support the integrity of ecosystems. C. Preserve and enhance the connection between the Huntington Beach Wetlands and the wetland/riparian area in Bartlett Park via the Huntington Beach Channel. D. Use future specific and area plans as a means to complete wildlife corridors. FE. Establish aquatic and terrestrial connections between the Bolsa Chica Wetlands and Central Park by restoring areas in the oil fields to a more natural environment. Protecting Habitat Resources in Wetlands Huntington Harbour, the Bolsa Chica Wetlands, the Huntington Beach Wetlands, the Talbert and Huntington Channels, and Anaheim Bay are used as spawning and nursery areas for a number of marine fishes, including important commercial fishes, and are utilized by threatened and endangered birds. Past development and the ongoing modifications to the Santa Ana River mouth and Huntington Beach Wetlands outlet have directly impacted areas through filling, dredging, and channelization. Urban runoff has also affected these areas. Stormwater runoff from streets with oil, grease, and Possible — trash is known to adversely impact marine biological resources and wetlands. sea level rise also threatens to affect the stability of the wetlands. Goal ERC-7. Wetland areas that serve as important biological resources for threatened and endangered birds, fish, and other species are protected and restored. City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) HB -389-Item 10. - 67 tt,C; . _ uoiremasuo) pup S331U0S311 1B1U0111110111A111 Policies A. Protect important wetland areas in the planning area through land use regulation or through non-profit land trust or public ownership and management. B. Maintain and enhance existing natural vegetation buffer areas surrounding riparian habitats and protect these areas from new development. C. Support County efforts to designate and manage environmentally sensitive lands—such as the Bolsa Chica Wetlands, the Huntington Beach Wetlands, and lands near the mouth of the Santa Ana River and north of Newland Street—for inclusion into a coastal wetlands preserve. D. Prevent-Minimize filling, dredging, and channelization of river and wetland areas other than necessary dredging to keep the tidal channel open. E. Reduce pollutant runoff from new development and urban runoff to the maximum extent practicable. F. Continue to evaluate and mitigate the effects of domestic and industrial wastes on living marine resources. G. Seek opportunities to naturalize flood channels while also enhancing flood protection capacity. Protecting Coastal Habitat Resources Coastal dunes, the beach, the surf zone, and offshore areas serve both important biological functions and as important recreational amenities. Coastal dunes have been reduced by urban development erosion and degradation and the intensification of beach uses. Goal ERC-8. Coastal dunes and habitat resources remain resilient to potential impacts of encroaching development, urban runoff, and possible sea level rise. Policies A. Sustain the biological productivity of coastal waters and maintain healthy populations of species of marine organisms adequate to support long-term commercial, recreational, scientific, and educational purposes. B. Promote the improvement of tidal circulation in the Bolsa Chica Wetlands, Huntington Harbour, Huntington Beach Wetlands, and Anaheim Bay and minimize impacts to sand hh IL if II Hr C. Prohibit development that jeopardizes or diminishes the integrity of sensitive or protected coastal plant and animal communities, accounting for expected changes from sea level rise. City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) HB -390-Item 10. - 68 nvironmenial Resources and Conservatio Maintaining Water Quality Urban stormwater runoff occurs when rainfall is collected by storm drains instead of being absorbed by groundcover or soil (commonly seen in a nonurban environment). When it rains, trash, silt, automotive chemicals, fertilizers, animal wastes, and other contaminants are washed into the storm drain system. Since storm drains are designed only to carry stormwater, they are typically not equipped with filters or cleaning systems. Consequently, they can carry contaminants found in urban runoff directly into flood control channels, creeks, rivers, and the ocean. Many of the contaminants found in runoff affect water quality, and can, at elevated levels, be toxic to aquatic and marine life. Increased surface water runoff will likely result from new development and reuse projects and existing land uses in Huntington Beach, potentially degrading already polluted waters. Goal ERC-17. Enhance and protect water quality of all natural water bodies including rivers, creeks, harbors, wetlands, and the ocean. Policies A. Require redevelopment to comply with the City's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit and other regional permits issued by the State Water Resources Control Board and the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. B. Require that new development and significant redevelopment projects employ innovative and efficient drainage technologies that comply with federal and state water quality requirements and reduce runoff and water quality impacts to downstream environments. C. Continue to require new development and significant redevelopment projects to propose protective safeguards and implement best management practices that minimize non-point source pollution and runoff associated with construction activities and ongoing operations. D. Continue to require that new development and significant redevelopment projects incorporate low-impact development best management practices, which may include infiltration, harvest and reuse, ef-evapotranspiration, and bio-treatment. E. Prioritize investment in green stormwater infrastructure that restores natural landscapes before employing other management solutions. F. Reduce pollutant runoff from new development to marine biological resources and wetlands by requiring the use of the most effective best management practices currently available. G. Partner with and provide information to community organizations, community members, and businesses regarding best practices to minimize runoff and improve groundwater recharge. H. Reduce impacts of new development and significant redevelopment project sites' hydrologic regime (hydromodification). 1-171. Continue working with the County and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) on the Integrated Regional Water Quality Management Plan to explore and expand more regional treatment of stormwater runoff. City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) HB -391-Item 10. - 69 Natural and Environmental Hazards Tsunamis are an important hazard of concern for Huntington Beach, with the ability to impact the entire length of coastline in the planning area. Tsunamis are often caused by earthquakes occurring below or near the ocean floor, although underwater volcanic eruptions and landslides can also generate these waves. Tsunamis can travel vast distances, and are capable of causing damage far away from the site of event that generated them. Huntington Beach may be affected by a tsunami caused by a local event, or by an event thousands of miles away elsewhere in the Pacific Ocean. The California Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) estimates that the Huntington Harbour neighborhood, the area northeast of the Bolsa Chica Wetlands, and the southeast corner of Huntington Beach are at an elevated risk of a tsunami, as shown in Figure HAZ-5. Coastal Hazards As a community with both bluffs and low-lying areas near the coast, Huntington Beach is at risk from two types of coastal hazards. High tides and high surf continually erode coastal bluffs located along the shoreline. This condition is often exacerbated by wind and inadequate drainage practices from development on top of bluffs. Beaches underneath the coastal bluffs can act as a protective buffer; however, these protective beaches themselves can be eroded away, particularly when structures such as seawalls, jetties, and breakwaters interrupt the natural processes that maintain the beaches. The Huntington Beach coastline totals 9.5 miles of shoreline, including both state and City beach areas. Beaches and other low-lying portions of the planning area are threatened by sea level rise, a slow but gradual process that may cause average sea levels to increase by as much as 5.5 feet or more by the year 2100. Current science indicates that Gsea level rise is directly linked to climate change, and sea level is expected to increase over time. An increase in the frequency of intense storms that affect California is one possible effect of climate change, and any such increase would also likely increase erosion through high surf and storm surges. Higher sea levels may increase community vulnerability to hazards such as storm surges and tidal flooding, and may also exacerbate coastal erosion by decreasing the size of protective beaches. To support the General Plan, and in accordance with adopted guidelines of the California Coastal Commission, the City prepared a vulnerability assessment estimating the consequences, probability, and resulting risk from various sea level rise scenarios. Depending on the scenario, additional land located near the coast could be subject to varying degrees of shoreline erosion and more extreme storm-related flooding. These hazards could threaten private buildings, public facilities, roads, and beaches. City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) HB -392-Item 10. - 70 This assessment looks forward to 2100 to determine the specific extent of the city's vulnerability to sea level rise, including an inventory of potentially affected assets and their estimated replacement value. Although most of this General Plan looks to the year 2040, the sea level rise assessment identifies vulnerabilities on a much longer horizon for multiple reasons. First, while the sea level rise assessment relies on the best available science and methods, there is an inherent degree of uncertainty in these projections, meaning sea levels could rise faster or slower than the estimated projections. Second, as current science indicates that sea level rise is a dircct consequence of climate change, the amount of sea level rise could exceed estimates if the activities that cause climate change end up being greater than expected. Additionally, a building constructed within the horizon of this General Plan may still be used toward the end of the century; thus, it is important to understand potentially hazardous conditions within the planning area in 2100 to cover the life span of a building. Both coastal and inland areas face threats from sea level rise. The threat to coastal areas is the result of erosion and flooding from wave run-up (particularly from large waves associated with coastal storms). Sea level rise threatens the inland areas by exacerbating flooding from very high tides, and by contributing to flooding from extreme rainfall events. Areas subject to potential coastal or inland sea level rise by 2050 are identified as a Potential Sea Level Rise Hazard Area in Figure HAZ-6. The Sunset Beach and Huntington Harbour neighborhoods and areas located south of the Huntington Beach Pier face the highest risks. The planning horizon of this General Plan is 2040, although the hazard area reflects areas of potential impact by 2050. This extra time helps ensure that projects proposed near the end of the General Plan horizon will still benefit from increased resiliency to sea level rise for several more years. It also provides a safety margin in the event that future sea level rise is more severe or occurs more rapidly than anticipated in current modeling, as previously discussed. Sea level rise risks within the hazard area are addressed by the Huntington Beach Coastal Resiliency Program (CRP). Strategies outlined in the CRP include monitoring and implementation of regulations to minimize impacts in low-lying coastal areas of the city, constructing new infrastructure in less vulnerable areas or using methods more resilient than current standards, considering sea level rise when planning shoreline protection structures, and encouraging new development in less vulnerable areas. MEM IMUOUNIIIMO DIM itillIVN City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) HB -393-Item 10. - 71 Nalural and Environmental Hazards Remediating Brownfield Sites Due to historical aerospace, oil, and energy production uses and related contamination, several opportunity sites for future cleanup and remediation are located within the community. These sites offer new opportunities for brownfield development and reduce the potential for exposure to contaminants for future generations. For the purposes of this General Plan, brownfield sites are defined as properties that are contaminated and underutilized due to perceived remediation costs and liability concerns. The goals and policies provided below are intended to assist the City in the future development of sites that meet this criteria rather than regulate sites with current hazardous waste activities. Goal HAZ-5. Environmental cleanup and management of brown field sites improves environmental quality of life, desirability of surrounding neighborhoods, economic development, and housing options in the community. Policies A. Continue to identify, map, and remediate existing hazardous waste sites and require remediation when a property is redeveloped. B. Encourage use of remediated brownfields for housing. commercial, industrial public, and recreational uses and for open space opportunities while Rprioritizeinq open space uses, renewable energy facilities, and other community-supporting facilities as preferred options for future use of remediated brownfield sites. C. Prohibit the future placement of sensitive land uses in close proximity to hazardous material and waste sites. Managing Hazardous Materials and Wastes While brownfield sites pose a risk from hazardous materials that may have leaked into the environment in previous years, Huntington Beach community members and visitors also face risks from hazardous materials that are transported through the community or used as part of current activities, including vehicle and pipeline transport. The City can reduce risks from these materials by ensuring that proper safety practices are in place, and that emergency responders and community members have information necessary to protect themselves. Goal HAZ-6: The risk of exposure to hazardous materials in Huntington Beach is substantially decreased. Policies A. Avoid locating facilities that use, store, transport, process, or dispose of hazardous materials near residential areas or other sensitive uses. B. Promote the use of roadways with minimal exposure to residential areas or other sensitive uses as routes suitable for transporting hazardous materials. City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) HB -394-Item 10. - 72 Natural and Environmental Hazards B. Ensure that all emergency plans are fully inclusive of the community members of Huntington Beach. C. Support the Community Emergency Response and Training (CERT) program, as feasible, depending on the availability of funding and volunteers. Reducing Potential Threats to Homeland Security Huntington Beach is a desirable location to live and work as well as a destination for over 11 million visitors annually. Large-scale events such as the US Open of Surfing attract large crowds every year. In addition, the beach and Downtown area attract a wide variety of visitors on a regular basis. These conditions have increased the need for enhanced emergency response and preparedness activities throughout the community. As a result, a portion of the City's emergency response resources are used to address planning and policy issues associated with homeland security, as well as to regularly monitor activities within these areas. In recent years, some events have escalated, causing minor property damage and injuries and resulting in additional police response. Goal HAZ-9. Residents and businesses are protected from human-caused and terrorism-related hazards. Policies A. Recommend emergency personnel become engaged in proactive community policing activities during special events, B. Ensure City procedures and protocols are updated to reference departmental roles in the Emergency Operations Plan, which outlines response and recovery activities for terrorism and civil unrest in the city, C. If deemed necessary during a large community event, activate the Emergency Operations Center to ensure effective coordination of emergency response activities. D. Expand emergency management planning and preparedness activities to include anti- terrorism components. City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) HB -395-Item 10. - 73 cl? Issues:,oa1s. and Policies ro The noise issues addressed in this element include: • Protecting noise-sensitive land uses • Ensuring land use/noise compatibility • Reducing noise from mobile sources • Mitigating noise from construction, maintenance, and other sources Protecting Noise-Sensitive Land Uses Sensitive land uses have associated human activities that may be subject to stress or significant interference from noise. Noise-sensitive land uses are located in portions of the planning area that vary from moderately quiet residential areas to noisy major transportation corridors. Goal N-1. Noise-sensitive land uses are protected in areas with acceptable noise levels. Policies A. Maintain acceptable stationary noise levels at existing noise-sensitive land uses such as schools, residential areas, and open spaces. B. Incorporate design and construction features into residential, e19-ei-mixed-use. commercial, and industrial -projects that shield noise-sensitive land uses from excessive noise. Ensuring Land Use/Noise Compatibility Some residential, commercial, and institutional land uses, particularly those located along arterial roadways, experience excessive vehicular noise. Commercial and industrial land uses also have the potential to generate noise that can be considered intrusive to noise- sensitive land uses. Mixed-use development projects often include both residential uses located above or in close proximity to commercial uses and stand-alone multi-family residential uses. A unique challenge presented by mixed-use development is that on one hand, such uses desire locations along busy street 6-18 City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) HB -396-Item 10. - 74 corridors, and on the other hand, state-mandated interior noise requirements for residential uses must be met within the residential portions of such uses. Goal N-2. Land use patterns are compatible with current and future noise levels. Policies A. Require an acoustical study for proposed projects in areas where the existing or projected noise level exceeds or would exceed the maximum allowable levels identified in Table N-2. The acoustical study shall be performed in accordance with the requirements set forth in this Noise Element. B. Allow a higher exterior noise level standard for infill projects in existing residential areas adjacent to major arterials if no feasible mechanisms exist to meet exterior noise standards. C Minimize excessive noise from industrial land uses through incorporation of site and building design features that are intended to reduce noise impacts to sensitive land uses. D Encourage new mixed-use development projects to site loading areas, parking lots, driveways, trash enclosures, mechanical equipment, and other noise sources away from residential portions of the development, to the extent feasible. Reducing Noise from Mobile Sources Roadway noise from vehicle traffic is the most common source of noise in Huntington Beach. New development supporting anticipated population growth will increase traffic levels on arterials, resulting in increased noise levels. Future development of several vacant parcels and parcels that may support infill development or reuse will also have the potential to increase roadway noise levels in surrounding neighborhoods. In addition to roadways, rail and aircraft operations create noise in certain portions of the planning area. The general noise environment also includes occasional noise from private, police, emergency medical, and news/traffic monitoring helicopters. Goal N-3. The community is not disturbed by excessive noise from mobile sources such as vehicles, rail traffic, and aircraft. Policies A. Mitigate noise created by any new transportation noise source so that it does not exceed the exterior or interior sound levels specified in Table N-2. B. Prioritize use of site planning and project design techniques to mitigate excessive noise. The use of noise barriers shall be considered a means of achieving the noise standards only after all other practical design-related noise mitigation measures have been integrated into the project. C. Employ noise-reducing technologies such as rubberized asphalt, fronting homes to the roadway, or sound walls to reduce the effects of roadway noise on noise-sensitive land uses. City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) 6-19 HB -397-Item 10. - 75 Dry Utilities Dry utilities provided in Huntington Beach include electricity, natural gas, internet and cable communications, and both wired and wireless telephone service. Electricity is provided to residents and businesses in Huntington Beach through Southern California Edison, and natural gas is provided by Southern California Gas Company (SoCal Gas). Southern California Edison provides renewable energy as part of its energy portfolio, with wind and geothermal providing the most energy of the renewable sources. The City has also installed 2.13 megawatts of solar panels at City Hall and the Central Library, helping to reduce City costs and providing the City more control over its energy supplies. Internet, cable, and/or communications services are provided by third—partv purveyors. Cellular service is available from all major cellular networks. The City is committed to working with utility providers so that the most advanced and effective services are available to all residents and businesses. Infrastructure Finance Major infrastructure projects, including construction, expansion, renovation, or replacement of infrastructure, facilities, or equipment, are known as "capital projects." The City funds capital projects using a variety of sources. The largest sources are special revenue funds and enterprise funds. Special Revenue Funds Special revenue funds are derived from entitlement funds, such as the gas tax, or developer funds, such as development impact fees. Entitlement funds are distributed based on population, whereas developer funds are used to minimize the impacts a development project will have on infrastructure. Special revenue funds include the Air Quality Fund, Traffic Impact Fund, Gas Tax Fund, Park Acquisition Fund, Measure M Fund, and Traffic Congestion Relief (Proposition 42) Fund. Enterprise Funds Enterprise funds are acquired from users paying for the use of a service, such as water and sewer. These funds support the cost of operations, maintenance, and upgrades to the system and service. Enterprise funds include the Water Fund, the Sewer Service Fund, and the General Fund Capital Improvement Reserve. City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) HB -398-Item 10. - 76 Goal PSI-2. Huntington Beach residents and property owners are protected from fire hazards and beach hazards, and adequate marine safety and emergency medical services are provided by modern facilities and advanced technology. Policies A. Consider the relationship between the location and rate of planned growth, the placement of critical facilities, and the resulting demands on fire, marine safety, and EMS facilities and personnel. B. Adopt locally defined performance objectives for emergency response to fire and EMS calls, and periodically evaluate fire service and EMS facilities and personnel relative to community needs. C. Consider fire-related emergency response needs when improving streets and critical intersections. D. Research, procure, and use modern equipment, advanced technology, and other innovative techniques to optimize fire, marine safety, and EMS services. E. Ensure that new development and reuse projects and existing land uses promote fire safety. F. Continue to provide adequate marine safety services, and consider additional safety measures to address increases in visitors to the city's beach areas and protect citizens from ocean surf line hazards. F7G. Ensure development provides adequate access for public safety responders in the event of an emergency. Transforming Libraries into Community Cultural Centers Public libraries are valuable cultural centers that are well used by a variety of community members. Increases in library patronage generated by development may overload the library system's capacity to provide adequate services without appropriate funding increases. The City has an opportunity to transform libraries to offer expanded cultural, artistic, and educational activities. Goal PS1-3. Libraries are central community facilities and library services respond to changing community needs. Policies A. Adapt libraries to become expanded cultural centers providing public space to meet community needs for after-school programs, job training programs, workshops, and other activities while ensuring they maintain the basic service of providing public access to information, reading. and education resources. B. Consider constructing new libraries and rehabilitating and expanding existing libraries and hsk programs to meet changing community needs. City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) 7-11 HB -399-Item 10. - 77 Goal PSI-5. A range of educational programs and facilities meets the needs of all ages of the community. Policies A. Continue to consult with school districts to maximize existing use of school seeees-sites while -aec-emiffleclatiftg-addressing future community and school district needs. B. Continue to support and expand continuing education, after-school programs, and educational programs for all ages including educational opportunities offered in neighboring universities and colleges. C. Continue to work with school districts for shared use of school district park spacesEnsuro continucd use of school facilitics for public recreational activities and the use of City parks to support school educational purposes. G-1). Ensure that developers consult with the appropriate school district with the intent to mitigate a potential impact on school facilities prior to project approval by the City. Maintaining Optimal Physical Condition of Water and Sewer Infrastructure Water and sewer infrastructure is managed through the use of separate enterprise funds. As the water and sewer systems continue to age, deterioration will occur. Water system infrastructure is much more costly to construct and maintain than the sewer system. Water Master Plan (WM P) updates are performed typically every five years, with the last update adopted in 2016. The Sewer Master Plan study was last performed in 2003 and will be updated as needed to identify new major improvements to maintain and replace aging sewer infrastructure. Goal PSI-6. The costs of water and sewer infrastructure improvements are addressed by benefitting development projects. Policies A. Provide and maintain wastewater collection facilities which adequately convey wastewater generated by existing land uses and future projects while maximizing cost efficiency. B. Ensure that the costs of water and wastewater infrastructure improvements are borne by those who benefit, through adequate fees and charges or the construction of improvements. C. Explore additional funding sources to support necessary maintenance, expansion, and upgrades to the water and sewer systems. City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) 7-13 HB -400-Item 10. - 78 D. Improve solid waste collection and recycling services associated with special events and the availability of trash and recycling receptacles in public areas, including but not limited to Downtown, Beach Boulevard, City parks, and along the beach. E. Continue to expand household recycling services and provide public information regarding how community members can dispose of or recycle materials correctly. F. Reduce the amount of waste disposed per employee in the business community by improving commercial recycling services and providing information to support waste reduction. G. Expand the types of waste that can be recycled or otherwise diverted from the community waste stream, including organic materials in compliance with state law. H. Continue to provide public information regarding residential collection of household hazardous wastes including paint containers, electronics, household chemicals, motor oils, and pesticides, and promote development of facilities that collect these materials. Meeting Dry Utility Needs Dry utility services, such as electricity, natural gas, telephone, and data services, both meet basic needs and enhance quality of life for Huntington Beach residents. Supporting or providing enhanced data services in industrial and employment/technology areas is also an important economic development strategy. These services are provided by independent entities that set their own service standards and facility improvement strategies. The City works with service providers to ensure that goals and service expectations are met for both current and future development. Goal PSI-10. Superior electricity, natural gas, telephone, and data services improve quality of life and support economic development. Policies A. Continue to consult with dry utility service providers to ensure that the community's current and future needs are met. B. Continue to require utilities to be placed underground as part of new development projects. C. Support the use of new and emerging communication technologies. D. Promote provision of high-capacity data systems to support new development and reuse projects, particularly within the Research and Technology land use designation. E. Encourage integrated and cost-effective design and technology features within new development and reuse projects to minimize demands on dry utility networks. E7F. Create and maintain a "dig once" policy. 7-16 \ I City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) HB -401-Item 10. - 79 • Land Use Element City Plans, Ordinances, and Programs LU-P.1. Related Programs and Governmental Agencies Continue to ensure compliance with federal, state, and local programs and regulations, including but not limited to the following: • California Coastal Act and Local Coastal Program • Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy • Orange County Local Agency Formation Commission • Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance • Huntington Beach Municipal Code Departments: Community Development, Public Works, Police Fire Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: General Fund, development fees Time Frame: Ongoing LU-P.2. Surf City Culture and Identity Continue to ensure that all new development and reuse projects in the city are designed in a manner that preserves the Surf City culture and identity. Encourage project applicants to emphasize the Surf City culture and identity through building orientation and design, landscaping, and other visual features. Provide specific guidelines and resources for how to incorporate the Surf City culture and identity into proposed developments. The Surf City theme should be emphasized in development projects throughout the city, not only in visitor-serving areas. Departments: Community Development Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: General Fund, development fees Time Frame: Ongoing LU-P.3. Downtown Preservation Continue to maintain the character, function, and visual feel of Downtown as the central commercial, entertainment, and recreational district in Huntington Beach. Allow for new development in Downtown that supports the area's characteristics and purpose. All design standards applied in Downtown, including building and architectural design guidelines, City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) HB -402-Item 10. - 80 street furniture standards, landscaping requirements, and sign standards, shall emphasize the character of Downtown and reinforce Downtown as distinct from the rest of the city. The Downtown area shall continue to emphasize pedestrian and bicycle-oriented transportation. Ensure that Downtown continues to meet the needs and expectations of residents, local businesses, and visitors. Departments: Community Development, Office of Business Development, Public Works, Police, Fire Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: General Fund, development fees Time Frame: Ongoing LU-P.4. Residential Compatibility Protect existing residential neighborhoods from increased development or redevelopment on surrounding parcels that may prove incompatible with residential uses, including development or redevelopment that generates substantial traffic volumes, produces noise or unpleasant odors, or involves the use of hazardous materials. Identify opportunities to convert existing land uses near residential neighborhoods that are incompatible with the neighborhood to more suitable uses. Ensure that all new homes in existing residential neighborhoods are compatible with surrounding structures, while still allowing for variations in appearance to maintain an interesting visual character. Departments: Community Development, Police Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: General Fund Time Frame: Ongoing LU-P.5. Protection for Unique Areas Ensure that the unique neighborhoods, corridors, and land use subareas within the planning area maintain their distinct character and visual appearance. All standards for building design, streetscape design, and landscaping in these areas should be consistent with the area's look and feel. Work closely with residents and business owners in these areas to ensure that new development proposals are consistent with the character and visual appearance of the neighborhood, corridor, or subarea. Departments: Community Development, Public Works Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: General Fund, development fees, Business Improvement District funding Time Frame: Ongoing 8-4 City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) HB -403-Item 10. - 81 • LU-P.9. Accessibility of New Development Focus new development, particularly larger developments with a high number of residents, employees, customers, and/or visitors, in areas that are easily accessible by alternative modes of transportation, including walking, bicycling, and transit use. Work with applicants to include project improvements that support alternative transportation. Consider the ease of reaching other destinations from the proposed development using alternative transportation, and identify opportunities to improve local and regional transportation networks. Coordinate with the Orange County Transportation Authority to ensure consistency between proposed land uses and changes to transit operations. Departments: Planning Division, Public Works Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: General Fund, development fees Time Frame: Ongoing LU-P.10. Affordable Housing Ensure that Huntington Beach has a sufficient supply of housing for individuals and families of all incomes, including extremely low- and very low-income residents. Meet or exceed the target number of affordable units specified in the city's Regional Housing Needs Allocation. Integrate affordable housing into mixed-use projects and market-rate residential developments. Locate affordable housing near high-quality jobs, and ensure that affordable housing sites have sufficient access to alternative modes of transportation. Departments: Community Development, Office of Business Development Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: General Fund, development fees Time Frame: Ongoing LU-P.11. Industrial Expansion and Redevelopment Attract new businesses to the city's industrial areas, and encourage existing businesses to expand. Work with property owners in industrial areas to ensure that buildings provide the amenities necessary to attract and retain high-value tenants. Amend zoning and development codes to remove regulatory barriers that may prevent businesses in new and emerging fields from locating in Huntington Beach. Identify opportunities to allow businesses that support industrial uses and provide services to employees to locate in or near industrial areas. Ensure that new and expanded businesses do not create conflicts with surrounding land uses and community character, and work with businesses to reduce existing conflicts. Require preparation of a health risk assessment for new uses located in the Industrial and Research and Technology designations that potentially generate diesel particulate matter emissions and potential toxic air contaminant (TAG) emitters located 8-6 City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) HB -404-Item 10. - 82 within 1,000 feet of existing sensitive uses and use recommendations outlined in the health risk assessment to determine siting limitations and mitigation approaches. Departments: Community Development, Office of Business Development Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: General Fund, Business Improvement District funding Time Frame: Ongoing LU-P.12. Technology and Innovation Subareas Recruit and incentivize new business uses in the Northwest Industrial and Gothard Street Subareas suitable for light industrial and manufacturing activities, with an emphasis on high-tech businesses, research and development, small-scale advanced manufacturing, and similar land uses, as well as supportive uses that provide basic services to employees. Buildings in these subareas should be flexible enough to support a variety of potential tenants and provide the amenities sufficient to attract and retain desired types of businesses, including necessary energy and communication infrastructure. Ensure that Technology and Innovation Subareas are easily accessible by multiple modes of transportation, including walking and biking. Departments: Community Development, Office of Business Development Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: General Fund, Business Improvement District funding Time Frame: Ongoing LU-P.13. Intersection Enhancement Subareas Develop a City-defined landscape program for major intersections in the Intersection Enhancement Subareas to unify the landscaping between individual developments and further enhance the aesthetic appeal of the areas. Develop design guidelines that define appropriate colors, materials, signage, and architectural treatments for commercial developments located at major intersections to enable developments to become more unified as new uses are established and properties are updated over time. Work with individual property owners to create additional pedestrian connections and modify the circulation patterns in parking areas to create pathways for pedestrians to access the site and internal uses. Identify and remove existing curb cuts that no longer meet current safety requirements, and work with property owners to develop new circulation patterns within sites affected by this activity. uollumamaiduff Departments: Planning Division, Public Works, Office of Business Development Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: General Fund Time Frame: Ongoing City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) Li 8-7 HB -405-Item 10. - 83 LU-P.14. Housing for Industrial and Research/Technology Employees Consider allowing housing near Industrial and Research/Technology areas to create convenient residences for employees in these land uses. Ensure that any housing in or near these areas does not conflict with Industrial or Research/Technology activities, and is not exposed to any potential undesirable impacts that may be generated by these land uses. Avoid building housing on land that is more suitable for nonresidential land uses within the Industrial or Research/Technology zones. Consider opportunities to locate housing above nonresidential buildings. Departments: Community Development, Office of Business Development Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: General Fund Time Frame: Ongoing LU-P.15. Commercial Revitalization Identify and improve struggling commercial areas within the planning area. Work with property owners and local business groups to select and implement revitalization strategies, including renovations to the building stock, changes to the streetscape and landscaping, and improved access for multiple modes of transportation. Determine which types of land uses are most suitable for the area, including the potential to build residential units above commercial properties. Use existing assets such as historic buildings, and consider how older buildings may be renovated to support new land uses. Pursue all available sources of funding to provide economic assistance to businesses in revitalized areas. Departments: Planning Division, Office of Business Development, Public Works Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: General Fund, grant funding, Business Improvement District funding Time Frame: Ongoing LU-P.16. Business Improvement Districts In coordination with business groups, establish Business Improvement Districts or other economic development strategies to generate funding for area improvements that will result in increased customers and economic activity. Coordinate improvements funded through Business Improvement Districts to ensure that all businesses are benefiting. Identify opportunities to use Business Improvement Districts for improvements that result in long-term improved economic sustainability, including resource conservation programs and hazard resiliency. Departments: City Manager's Office, Office of Business Development Related Policies: To be provided following adoption City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) 8-8 HB -406-Item 10. - 84 • Funding Source: General Fund, grant funding, Business Improvement District funding Time Frame: Ongoing LU-P.17. Residential Property Maintenance Provide residential property owners with resources to support preserving a high quality of housing, including available economic incentives, financing programs, and assistance in obtaining the necessary City permits. These items should allow residential property owners to maintain safe, healthy, and comfortable living environments, as well as provide opportunities for improvements such as energy efficiency retrofits. Ensure that support and incentives are also made available to residential landlords to maintain and improve the quality of rental stock, while maintaining affordability. Department: Building Division, Code Enforcement Division, Office of Business Development, Police, Fire Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: General Fund, grant funding Time Frame: Ongoing LU-P.18. Economic Development Assistance Maintain existing economic development programs, and identify and implement opportunities to expand and improve these programs. Through economic development assistance, emphasize businesses that provide for unmet or undermet needs in Huntington Beach, provide high-quality jobs, support new and emerging industries, or provide economic opportunities to historically underrepresented persons such as ethnic minorities, women, or disabled individuals. Coordinate with local business groups and academic institutions to improve these programs and expand their reach. Monitor and report on the effectiveness of economic development assistance programs, and revise programs as needed to improve success. Department: Office of Business Development Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: General Fund, grant funding, Business Improvement District funding Time Frame: Ongoing LU-P.19. Local and Diverse Economy Encourage the establishment and expansion of businesses which provide an increase in job type diversity and support a healthy jobs-housing balance in the planning area. Emphasize jobs for people with a wide variety of education backgrounds, skills, and passions. Work to ensure that jobs provide a sufficient wage, allowing employees to live near their workplace, and that such jobs include opportunities for advancement. City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) HB -407-Item 10. - 85 Departments: Planning Division, Office of Business Development Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: General Fund, grant funding, Business Improvement District funding Time Frame: Ongoing LU-P.20. Commercial Diversity Work with the local business community to ensure that retail and other commercial facilities in Huntington Beach meet resident needs by providing desired types of goods and services at reasonable prices. Consider the varying commercial needs of residents, including lower-income individuals, minority groups, and non-traditional families. Identify opportunities to meet commercial demand from surrounding communities and to attract customers from a wider region. Encourage businesses to fill unmet commercial demand through economic incentives and favorable development policies. Departments: Office of Business Development Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: General Fund, Business Improvement District funding Time Frame: Ongoing LU-P.21. Retail Sales Monitoring Track all taxable retail sales in Huntington Beach, and publicize this information regularly to City officials, members of the public, and the local business community. Use this information to determine the amount of retail leakage (consumers purchasing items from retailers outside of the city) for key categories. Work with business groups to determine the causes of retail leakage, including why consumers may favor a store in another community, and if there is residual demand for retail goods that are not met within Huntington Beach. Identify strategies to address the causes of retail leakage. Departments: City Treasury, Office of Business Development Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: General Fund Time Frame: Ongoing LU-P.22. Closure of Surplus School Sites Building Reuse In the event of the closure of a surplus school site, work with school districts to develop and implement alternative uses for the property. Consistent with state law, explore with the school districts - alternative uses for the site wit4i school districts that serve a public benefit, including other education facilities, community centers, recreation facilities, and open space, although all uses should be considered. cPcfe GITGFIE11,1 City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) HB -408-Item 10. - 86 en-ab-le-t-he-Idu-i-td-i-n-g-te-ee converted back to school uses at -a future date if needed. Departments: Community Services, Planning Division, City Manager's Office. Office of Business Development Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: General Fund Time Frame: Ongoing LU-P.23. Overnight Accommodations Encourage additional expansion of overnight accommodations in Huntington Beach, consisting of both new businesses and expansion and renovation of existing properties. Identify suitable locations for new and expanded accommodations, and work with property owners and business groups to consider whether lodging on these properties is feasible. Support the inclusion of smaller lodging uses as part of mixed-use developments. Ensure that the supply of lodging in Huntington Beach meets the needs of different types of visitors, including vacationing families, single adults and couples, and business travelers. Support a range of different lodging options at various price points. Explore the feasibility of short-term vacation rentals. Departments: Community Development, Office of Business Development Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: General Fund, Business Improvement District funding Time Frame: Ongoing LU-P.24. Shuttle Services Explore creating a free or low-cost shuttle service connecting the shore and Downtown to major shopping districts, hotels, and other visitor destinations. The shuttle should have sufficient hours of operation and arrive frequently enough to offer a viable alternative to car travel. As funding allows, adjust the operating schedule to support employee commutes to visitor destinations. The shuttle service and supportive infrastructure (such as stops) should be comfortable, safe, visually engaging, and marketed with unique branding. Departments: Office of Business Development, Public Works Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: General Fund, development fees, Business Improvement District funding Time Frame: Consider feasibility by 2020 City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) HB -409-Item 10. - 87 t'\ CIRC-P.4. Emergency Access Provide approved means for emergency vehicles to access and turn around on all streets. Departments: Public Works, Planning Division, Fire, Police Related Policy: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: General Fund Time Frame: Ongoing CIRC-P.5. Emergency Management and Homeland Security Program Implement the City's Emergency Management and Homeland Security (EMHS) Program according to requirements and provisions of the State Emergency Management System (SEMS). Ensure that the program establishes community evacuation routes and emergency shelter facilities, and is easily available to the public. Departments: Fire, Police, Public Works Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: General Fund Time Frame: Ongoing CIRC-P.6. Neighborhood Circulation Improvements Prepare and maintain a Neighborhood Traffic Management Technical Administrative Report (TAR) that identifies needed methods to address cut-through traffic volumes, high speeds, truck traffic intrusions, demonstrated accident history, parking shortages, or school-related traffic congestion in city neighborhoods such as: • Discouraging creation of new major roadway connections that would adversely impact the character of existing residential neighborhoods. • Continuing to develop and implement parking and traffic control plans for neighborhoods that are adversely impacted by spill-over parking and traffic, as feasible. • Implementing the Residential Parking Permit Program (Municipal Code Chapter 10.42) in residential areas as prescribed in the Municipal Code. • Considering appropriate traffic-calming measures such as raised medians and provision of bike or transit lanes to mitigate problems posed by schools and other land uses that generate high traffic volumes at specific times. Provide solutions to mitigate these problems as warranted by local studies. Department: Public Works, Fire Related policies: To be provided following adoption 8-16 City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) HB -410-Item 10. - 88 CIRC-P.10. Waterborne Transportation Continue to support the maintenance of existing waterways and encourage private development of waterborne transportation for recreation or commuting. Departments: Planning Division, Community Services, Public Works Related Policy: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: General Fund Time Frame: Ongoing Capital Improvements CIRC-P.11. Capital Improvement Program Use the City's 5-year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) process to prioritize, fund, and build required roadway and bikeway improvements, and to address phasing and construction of traffic infrastructure throughout the city. To prioritize these improvements, the City's TARs will be reviewed and updated regularly with current citywide traffic counts for roadway links and intersections. Roadways and intersections that are approaching the LOS standards stated in Policy CIRC-1.B should be prioritized appropriately for improvements including road widening, paving, parking restrictions, or intersection improvements. Departments: Public Works, City Council, Community Development Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: General Fund Time Frame: Ongoing CIRC-P.12. Principal and Secondary Intersection Improvements Prepare and maintain a Principal and Secondary Intersections TAR that will include information such as roadway dimensions, a listing of intersections and roadway improvements required to transition from the current system of roadways to full implementation of the Arterial Highway Plan, current citywide traffic counts for roadway links and intersections, and other useful traffic-related information. Content included will be based on need, as determined by the Director of Public Works. Updates to the TAR will be coordinated annually in tandem with the Capital Improvement Program. The TAR will be available for use by City staff and decision-makers, and should be available for review by the public. Include TAR information in the City's GIS system as appropriate and feasible. Departments: Public Works, City Council, Police. Fire Related Policies: To be provided following adoption City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) HB -411-Item 10. - 89 CIRC-P.16. Pedestrian Facilities and Enhancement Zones Maintain existing pedestrian facilities and require new development to provide accessible pedestrian walkways between developments, schools, and public facilities. Review potential areas in or near Downtown, adjacent to the beach, and along portions of Beach Boulevard for designation as pedestrian enhancement zones. Prepare and maintain a Pedestrian Facilities TAR and other pedestrian facility related analyses describing the location and proposed improvements in enhancement zones. Such improvements may include wider sidewalks, enhanced or new crosswalks, trees, pedestrian-scale lighting, or traffic-calming measures. All improvements shall comply with ADA accessibility standards. Exact improvements will vary depending on location. Departments: Planning Division, Public Works Working With: School districts Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: General Fund Time Frame: Prepare Pedestrian Facilities Technical Administrative Report by 2020, ongoing implementation CIRC-P.17. Equestrian Facilities Continue to ensure that trails and other equestrian facilities are maintained by the responsible party and expanded as opportunities arise. Departments: Community Services, Public Works Related Policy: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: General Fund Time Frame: Ongoing Development Review Requirements CIRC-P.18. Site Development Permit Process and CEQA Utilize the site development permit process and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to: • • Review potential impacts of proposed projects to the circulation system and require appropriate mitigation measures as required by CEQA. • Require preparation of traffic impact studies as described in the City's traffic study guidelines. • Require new development proposals to consider and minimize vehicle miles traveled. 8 -20 \ j City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) HB -412-Item 10. - 90 -a • Improvement of signal operations on state highways in the Gcity, including the development and implementation of effective signal synchronization programs and advanced signal communications infrastructure. Investigate the potential for Caltrans to declassify relinquish Beach Boulevard and Pacific Coast Highway a-dd nc rcsonstn y—te Bat] erFF1 Caltrans to the City in coordination with the Beach and Edinger Cotridors Specific Plan. Departments: Public Works, Planning Division, City Council Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: General Fund Time Frame: Ongoing CIRC-P.26. Southern California Association of Governments Participate with the Southern California Association of Governments and represent the City's interests in development of regional transportation initiatives such as the Regional Transportation Plan. Departments: Public Works, Planning Division, City Council Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: General Fund Time Frame: Ongoing CIRC-P.27. South Coast Air Quality Management District Work closely with the South Coast Air Quality Management District to improve air quality and incorporate the Air Quality Management Plan into the City's practices and programs. Department: Public Works, Planning Division, City Council Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: General Fund Time Frame: Ongoing CIRC-P.28. Orange County Transportation Authority Work with the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) to achieve the following: • Maintain consistency with the County Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH) within the city. • Pursue amendment of the MPAH to reclassify or delete street segments as identified in Figure CIRC-3. Implement the Congestion Management Program (CMP) in the city. 8-24 City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) HB -413-Item 10. - 91 • Expand and improve bus service throughout the city, and between Huntington Beach and other communities. • Encourage provision of attractive and appropriate transit amenities, including shaded bus stops. • Provide special transit services (such as direct shuttle or dial-a-ride services). • Support and implement the OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan, and participate in future updates and revisions to the plan. • Plan and implement an urban rail system that links the city to central Orange County and Los Angeles County. • Invcst in and pursucinvestigate the development of a transportation center in the coastal area. • Plan and implement Measure M and M2 projects. • Maintain consistency with OCTA's Long Range Transportation Plan. • Review, every five years, the Orange County Master Plan of Bikeways to ensure consistency. Update Huntington Beach's Bike Plan, as appropriate. • Work with OCTA to study vehicle-to-vehicle and vehicle-to-infrastructure technology. • Support the OC Loop project. • Pursue Measure M Project S funding to link the Goldenwest Transit Center to the resort area of Anaheim as funds are available. Departments: Public Works, City Council Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: General Fund, federal New Starts, state proposition funding, Measure M2 Time Frame: Ongoing CIRC-P.29. Future Santa Ana River Bridge Crossings Participate in ongoing regional planning efforts regarding future Santa Ana River bridge crossings. Departments: Public Works, City Council Related Policy: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: General Fund Time Frame: Ongoing City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) 8-25 HB -414-Item 10. - 92 • r\ 8-26 CIRC-P.30. Single-Occupancy Vehicle Legislation Remain aware of national, state, and regional legislation directed at reducing use of single- occupancy vehicles, and do what is feasible to support it. Departments: Public Works, City Manager's Office Related Policy: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: General Fund Time Frame: Ongoing CIRC-P.31. Adjacent Jurisdictions and Transportation Agencies Work with adjacent jurisdictions, including the Cities of Costa Mesa, Fountain Valley, Newport Beach, Seal Beach, and Westminster and Orange County, to ensure that traffic impacts do not adversely impact Huntington Beach. Continue to work with other public agencies to ensure that the city's circulation and transportation system is efficient and meets applicable safety standards. Engage in discussions with Caltrans, OCTA, and Orange County regarding the City assuming jurisdictional control of key areas, and being involved in the decision-making processes of areas in the city which are to remain under Caltrans jurisdiction. Departments: Public Works, Planning Division, City Council Related Policy: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: General Fund Time Frame: Ongoing CIRC-P.32. Transit System Coordination Encourage the inclusion of facilities that transport bicycles, surfboards, and other beach activity equipment on public transit vehicles (both fixed route and paratransit) wherever possible. Work to make routes and vehicles available and accessible to the disabled and seniors. Departments: Public Works Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: General Fund Time Frame: Ongoing CIRC-P.33. Preserve Abandoned Rights-of-Way Continue to work with rail agencies to reserve existing and abandoned rights-of-way for future transportation uses, such as transit or bicycle facilities. City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) HB -415-Item 10. - 93 • 8-28 Environmental Resources and Conservation Element City Plans, Ordinances, and Programs ERC-P.1. Related Programs and Governmental Agencies Continue to ensure compliance with federal, state, and local programs and regulations, including but not limited to the following: • California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 and Scoping Plan (AB 32) • California Coastal Act and the California Coastal Commission • California Environmental Quality Act • California Endangered Species Act • California Fish and Game Code • Quimby Act National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit • Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008 (SB 375) Departments: Planning Division, Public Works, Community Services Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: General Fund, development fees Time Frame: Ongoing ERC-P.2. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Tracking Monitor the status of greenhouse gas emissions in the city, as directed in the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program, and report the results to City officials and members of the public as part of an annual reporting effort, through the following actions: • Estimate community greenhouse gas emissions to track progress toward adopted greenhouse gas emissions reduction goals of 15 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, and 53.33 percent below 2020 levels by 2040. • Track implementation of all greenhouse gas emissions reduction measures and actions, including the status of each effort and progress toward the performance metrics in the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program. Department: City Manager's Office Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: General Fund Time Frame: Annually beginning in 2017 City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) HB -416-Item 10. - 94 ERC-P.6. Energy Efficiency Audits Develop a program to provide low- or no-cost energy audits to homes and businesses to help identify the most cost-effective ways to improve building energy efficiency. Recommendations should include low-cost actions which can be taken by renters. Publicize the availability of these energy audits, and strongly encourage all building owners interested in installing solar energy systems to conduct an energy efficiency audit prior to installation. Departments: City Manager's Office, Building Division Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: General Fund, grant funding Time Frame: By 2017 ERC-P.7. Energy Efficiency Retrofits Explore strategies to encourage energy efficiency retrofits in existing buildings by making upgrades more economically feasible, including offering incentives or financing mechanisms, and implement cost-effective strategies as feasible. Work to increase participation in property assessed clean energy (PACE) programs. Investigate the feasibility of a revolving loan program to support energy efficiency retrofits. Collaborate with residential and commercial landlords to support energy efficiency upgrades in rental units and leased commercial space. Department: City Manager's Office, Community Development Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: General Fund, grant funding Time Frame: Ongoing ERC-P.8. Energy Efficiency in Large Facilities In partnership with business groups, utility companies, and other involved stakeholders, work with large nonresidential properties to support energy efficiency retrofits in major facilities. Provide recommendations about available rebates and financing mechanisms, encourage highly effective lower-cost actions such as lighting upgrades and retrocommissioning, and work toward providing customized specific solutions for individual facilities based on energy audits or other assessments. Publicize participating facilities in events and in local media. Departments: City Manager's Office, Office of Business Development Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: General Fund, grant funding Time Frame: Ongoing 8-30 City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) HB -417-Item 10. - 95 8-34 • • Capital improvements ERC-P.17. Alternative Vehicles for City Fleet Transition the City vehicle fleet to alternative fuels such as electricity, biofuel, or hydrogen. Replace conventional vehicles at the end of their operational lives with alternative fuel vehicles as feasible. Consider the cost of alternative fuel vehicles relative to conventional vehicles over the entire lifetime of the vehicles. Department: Public Works Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: General Fund, grant funding Time Frame: Ongoing ERC-P.18. Renewable Fuel Stations install renewable fuel stations, including DC Fast Chargers and biofuel pumps, at City- owned facilities to support alternative fuel fleet vehicles. Open renewable fuel stations to members of the public to the extent feasible. Integrate solar photovoltaic systems into public electric vehicle charging facilities as possible. Encourage installation of renewable fuel stations as part of existing and new development projects. Department: Public Works Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: General Fund, grant funding Time Frame: Ongoing ERC-P.19. Municipal Microgrid Study opportunities to develop a microgrid for critical municipal facilities, allowing them to continue to operate during a power interruption with greater flexibility and in a more environmentally responsible way than currently allowed by diesel backup generators. Proposed microgrids should link key City administration and public safety buildings, as well as other critical facilities such as water pumping stations as feasible, -afrel-rely on energy storage and renewable energy systems as much as possible, and be consistent with broadband and wireless master plans. Departments: City Manager, Fire, Police, Public Works Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: General Fund, grant funding Time Frame: Study completed by 2020 City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) HB -418-Item 10. - 96 • ERC-P.20. Municipal Green Buildings Establish Explore minimum standards for new municipal facilities that require green building and energy efficiency features that exceed state requirements, and explore opportunities to retrofit existing municipal facilities. Study the feasibility of installing renewable energy systems on new and retrofitted municipal facilities, in support of state zero net energy goals. Pursue green building certification for new and retrofitted municipal facilities, and publicize successes in local and regional media. Departments: City Manager, Community Development, Public Works Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: Capital Improvement Funds, grant funding Time Frame: Ongoing ERC-P.21. New Parks and Open Space Explore opportunities to acquire and develop new parkland and open space, including mini parks, dog parks, athletic fields, amphitheaters, gardens, and shared facilities. Emphasize creating new parkland and open space in currently underserved areas, and in areas expected to see significant new development. Ensure that community members are served equitably by new parkland and open space, and that future parks and open space meet community needs and values. All new parkland and open space should be easily accessible by foot and by bicycle, as well as via public transit to the extent feasible. When possible, locate new parks near elementary schools with independent street frontage. Departments: Community Services, Community Development Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: Capital Improvement Funds Time Frame: Ongoing ERC-P.22. Open Space Preservation Continue to preserve open space in Huntington Beach, including by setting aside areas within parkland for natural areas. Structures or other development in open space should encourage low-intensity and passive activities such as nature trails, picnic and observational areas, informational signs and displays, and peripheral bike paths. Avoid development or recreational activities that may damage open space areas or be otherwise incompatible with existing habitat and native species. Department: Community Services Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: General Fund, Capital Improvement Funds Time Frame: Ongoing City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) HB -419-Item 10. - 97 Departments: Community Development Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: General Fund Time Frame: Standards established by 2020 ERC-P.31. Construction Activity Emissions In partnership with the South Coast Air Quality Management District, continue to enforce standards to reduce air pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions from construction activities, and impose these standards on new projects as a condition of development. Continue to require the use of best management practices to reduce dust and other airborne debris, reduce idling time for construction equipment, and explore the feasibility of requiring construction projects to use alternative fuel construction equipment. Require monitoring and reporting throughout construction activities to ensure the standards are being properly applied, and promptly remedy any violations. Update standards as needed to support new technologies and practices. Departments: Community Development, Public Works Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: General Fund, development fees Time Frame: Ongoing ERC-P.32. Coastal Access and Recreation Continue to provide a high degree of access to the coast, and identify opportunities to equitably improve coastal access for all community members that all Huntington Beach community members and visitors have reasonable access to an array of active and passive coastal recreational uses, and consider providing additional recreational uses in other locations to improve access without diminishing existing uses or coastal biological integrity. Departments: Planning Division, Community Services,, Public Works Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: General Fund, development fees Time Frame: Ongoing ERC-P.33. Water Conservation for New Development Continue to require new development projects to include feasible and innovative water conservation features as appropriate. Require the use of recycled water for landscaping irrigation, grading, and other non-contact uses where recycled water is available or expected to be available. Require new projects to include low-impact development strategies as feasible, which may include green stormwater infrastructure and graywater City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) Alin 8-39 HB -420-Item 10. - 98 • Departments: Public Works, Community Services Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: General Fund Time Frame: Ongoing ERC-P.37. Tidal Circulation Coordination Work with surrounding jurisdictions to improve the tidal circulation in the Balsa Chica Channel, Huntington Harbour, the Huntington Beach Wetlands, and Anaheim Bay. Coordinate to minimize construction of features that impact natural sand migration and littoral drift within the local environment. Develop ways to improve tidal circulation while also supporting increased biological integrity of coastal habitats, and improving the aesthetics and recreational viability of coastal areas. Work with the State Lands Commission and the California State Parks Division of Boating and Waterways to ensure they secure funding to maintain the Balsa Chica tidal inlet. Departments: Public Works, Community Services Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: General Fund Time Frame: Ongoing ERC-P.38. Air Pollutants and GHG Emissions from Stationary Sources Work with the South Coast Air Quality Management District and the California Air Resources Board, in coordination with local business groups, to decrease air pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions from large industrial facilities and other stationary sources. Pursue funding to reduce emissions from major sources, and prioritize emissions reduction activities near sensitive land uses and in disproportionally affected neighborhoods. Continue to coordinate with federal, state, and regional agencies to enforce air quality standards and improve air quality. As future land use plans are proposed and/or amended. undertake heig_htened consideration of policies and strategies to minimize exposure of sensitive land uses and disproportionally affected neighborhoods to health risks related to air pollution. Departments: City Manager's Office, Community Development Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: General Fund Time Frame: Ongoing ERC-P.39. Regional Recreation Coordination Partner with surrounding communities and Orange County to increase access to a wide range of recreational services and programs for Huntington Beach community members. Explore opportunities to work with private recreational businesses to provide facilities and City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) HB -421-Item 10. - 99 Public Information and Outreach ERC-P.42. Enerqy Efficiency and Conservation Education Widely distribute information about energy efficiency and conservation strategies, including information about rebates, financing opportunities, and low-cost and free strategies. Provide information about energy efficiency and conservation strategies for both residential and nonresidential facilities. Distribute information in multiple languages through in-person events and workshops, print media, television, radio, and online/social media. Identify members of the Huntington Beach community that are not easily reached by conventional outreach campaigns, and develop community engagement strategies to involve these community members. Department: City Manager's Office Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: General Fund, grant funding Time Frame: Ongoing ERC----P:43Efiergy-Gem-petitiens EIFErittt3-e It1-1913fttifit atamne events an recognize winncrs in a ceremony, and publicize results in local and regional media. Depaftmcnts: City Manager's Office Time Frame: Ongoing In partnership with local businesses afrel sponsors, construct a demonstration green extent possible. Provide information about the co'.3t of thc building, expected and observed resource and cost savings, and other useful information about building performance in City oti-tfeech materials and through an online dashboard. Development, Public Works City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) HB -422-Item 10. - 100 Funding Source: General Fund, grant f-H-riding T-ime-Frantei-Bsf2022- ERC-P.436. Water Efficiency and Conservation Education Expand existing water efficiency and conservation education campaigns to provide information about reducing water use to Huntington Beach residents and businesses. Include information about available rebates, financing opportunities for retrofits, and low- cost and free water efficiency and conservation options. Information should be distributed in multiple languages through in-person events and workshops, print media, television, radio, and online/social media. Identify members of the Huntington Beach community that are not easily reached by conventional outreach campaigns, and develop community engagement strategies to involve these community members. Continue water efficiency and conservation efforts during normal or wet water years, and work to ensure that water efficiency and conservation accomplishments continue outside of drought conditions. Departments: Public Works Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: General Fund, grant funding Time Frame: By 2020 8-44 City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) HB -423-Item 10. - 101 to support resiliency efforts. Funding should emphasize the use of soft shore stabilization and avoid shore armoring structures. Departments: Community Development Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Sources: General Fund, grant funds Time Frame: Local Coastal Program amendment by 2020, ongoing implementation HAZ-P.4. Runoff and Ponding Standards Amend the Municipal Code to establish standards for new development and significant retrofit projects to reduce the risk of increased runoff and ponding, and to support increased groundwater recharge. These standards shall emphasize the use of permeable paving, bioswales, and other low-impact development strategies. Departments: Community Development, Public Works Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: General Fund Time Frame: Standards established by 2020, ongoing implementation HAZ-P.5. Fire Inspections Continue to conduct regular inspections of nonresidential buildings to ensure that fire safety standards are met. All rResidential occupancies based on type should shall be inspected at a minimum frequency at least once a y ars required by state law. Department: Fire Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: General Fund Time Frame: Ongoing HAZ-P.6. Abandoned Oil Wells Reevaluate the safety and status of abandoned oil wells on brownfield properties where new development or reuse projects are proposed. Identify whether the well was properly decommissioned or whether mitigation activities may be necessary. Department: Fire Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: General Fund Time Frame: Ongoing 8-46 \ City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) HB -424-Item 10. - 102 wigwam! 1 in 1 HAZ-P.7. Alternative Brownfield Uses Identify and maintain a database of brownfield sites that may not be suitable for residential or nonresidential development. Work with property owners to encourage alternative use of such sites, including but not limited to renewable energy facilities, open spaces, or other community-supporting uses. Seek federal, state, and private funds for the assessment and remediation of brownfield sites in the Gcity that have redevelopment potential. Departments: Community Development Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: General Fund Time Frame: Database completed by 2020, ongoing implementation HAZ-P.8. Hazardous Materials Inspections and Database Continue to conduct inspections of facilities that manufacture, transport, store, process, or dispose of hazardous material and waste. Ensure that all information in City databases is up to date and that facilities are complying with all applicable requirements. Identify opportunities for facilities to improve their hazardous materials and waste methods to comply with best management practices. The City's participating agency will coordinate with other certified unified program agencies (CUPAs) in Orange County and with the California Environmental Protection Agency CUPA office to ensure the program is funded and equipped and that the employees receive proper training. Department: Fire Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: General Fund Time Frame: Ongoing HAZ-P.9. Hazardous Materials Response Protocols Establish and maintain emergency response protocols to ensure that City staff and any other emergency responders are notified immediately if there is a hazardous materials or waste release, or if another emergency situation poses the significant chance of such a release occurring. Departments: Fire, Police Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: General Fund Time Frame: Ongoing HAZ-P.10. Methane Overlay Districts Continue to evaluate the locations and concentrations of soils that may contain methane, and adjust the boundaries of the Methane Overlay Districts as needed. Continue to require methane testing and appropriate mitigation activities prior to any new development in a Methane Overlay District, including methane isolation barriers, collection systems, and vent systems. City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) HB -425-Item 10. - 103 Funding Source: General Fund Time Frame: Ongoing HAZ-P.28. Hazardous Materials Source Reduction Coordinate with industry representatives, researchers. and government agencies to identify cost-effective ways for businesses to reduce the amount of hazardous waste generated by normal operations, and encourage businesses to adopt these methods as part of their regular practice. Publicly recognize businesses that successfully reduce the amount of hazardous waste produced. Departments: Fire, Office of Business Development Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: General Fund Time Frame: Ongoing HAZ-P.29. Hazardous Materials Coordination Continue to coordinate with federal, state, and countycountywidc agencies on hazardous materials and waste programs, including site selection and screening for hazardous waste management facilities, household hazardous waste collection efforts, sharing and standardization of hazardous materials and waste data, and comprehensive emergency response actions for spills and illegal dumping of hazardous materials and waste. Departments: Fire, Public Works Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: General Fund Time Frame: Ongoing HAZ-P.30. Regional Aircraft Operation and Hazards Coordination Continue to coordinate with regional agencies to ensure local land use plans are consistent with the safe and effective operation of airports and helipads, and that City emergency response plans address the potential hazards associated with aircraft. Departments: Planning Division, Fire Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: General Fund Time Frame: Ongoing 8-54 City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) HB -426-Item 10. - 104 • Offer free emergency planning and response classes, including participation in Community Emergency Response Teams training, to Huntington Beach community members. • Distribute information about possible risks in Huntington Beach, ways to reduce risk, and effective post-emergency recovery strategies to community members through in- person events, online, and in print and electronic media in multiple languages, including Spanish, Vietnamese, and Chinese. • Work with local businesses to prepare workplace emergency plans, and to conduct regular drills and other preparatory exercises for emergency situations. • Work with the school districts to educate schoolchildren about ways to prepare for emergency situations, and to coordinate school emergency plans with City plans. Consider shelter in place provisions, evacuation needs, provisions for school closure, and consistency with City and regional shelter plans. • Develop emergency education programs for elderly and disabled persons, in collaboration with medical providers, residential care workers, and other supportive organizations. • Ensure that City evacuation plans include provisions for the safe and efficient evacuation of individuals with limited mobility, including elderly residents and persons with disabilities. • Continue to have the Huntington Beach Fire Department sponsor the Senior Home Inspection Program (Project SHIP), where volunteers conduct free home fire safety inspections for seniors in the city which can provide free smoke detectors and carbon monoxide detectors as funding is available. Departments: Fire, Police Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: General Fund Time Frame: Ongoing HAZ-P.35. Neighborhood-Based Coastal Resiliency Task Forces Convene neighborhood specific coastal resiliency task forces, or utilize existing neighborhood specific groups and committees to vet and implement resilience strategies that balance the diverse stakeholder interests. Prioritize neighborhoods with highly vulnerable communities and assets such as Huntington Harbour and Sunset Beach and include community members, City staff, and relevant stakeholders such as Caltrans, Southern California Edison, Sunset Beach Sanitary District, homeowners associations, and the County of Orange. Departments: Planning Division, Public Works Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: General Fund Time Frame: Ongoing 8-56 City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) HB -427-Item 10. - 105 uollgiumaidml Noise Eiemeni City Plans, Ordinances, and Programs N-P.1. Noise-Mitigating Design Guidelines Establish design guidelines for residential, commercial, industrial, and mixed-use structures that respond to noise concerns. Provide the guidelines to developers at an appropriate time during the development review process. Departments: Community Development Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Sources: General fund, development fees Time Frame: Guidelines established by 2020, ongoing implementation N-P.2. Industrial Hours of Operation Update the Municipal Code to establish and enforce appropriate hours of operation for industrial activities that maywith the potential to result in excessive noise with potential to disturb noise-sensitive land uses. Such activities include, but are not limited to, mechanical operations and truck deliveries. Departments: Community Development, Police Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: General fund Time Frame: Code updates completed by 2020, ongoing implementation and enforcement N-P.3. Noise Ordinance Updates Update the Noise Ordinance regularly on a cycle of no more than every 10 years. During each update, conduct the following: • Monitor on-the-ground conditions in areas of existing or likely noise-related conflict. • Conduct public outreach. •Evaluate the adequacy of enforcement mechanisms, and implement a system for tracking and monitoring locations where known or repetitive violations of noise standards have occurred or in locations where excessive noise disproportionately impacts disadvantaged communities.T • -Identify specific exterior noise standards for industrial and commercial properties located adjacent to sensitive land uses, and incorporate project design features that City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) Li 8-57 HB -428-Item 10. - 106 reduce noise conflicts between industrial and commercial properties and sensitive land uses. Departments: Community Development Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: General fund Time Frame: Every 10 years, ongoing Capital Improvements N-P.4. Noise Barrier Construction Funding Secure funding to support construction of noise barriers to protect private outdoor yard areas along arterial roadways where existing homes are exposed to noise levels above the standards identified in Noise Element Table N-2. Develop a priority program for the construction of such barriers. Department: Public Works Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Sources: General fund, grant funding Time Frame: Ongoing Development Review Requirements N-P.5. Construction Hours Enforce the following requirements during environmental review of proposed projects: • Limit construction activities that would produce an hourly L„ above 85 dBA to between the hours of 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. if such activities are proposed to occur within 100 feet of identified noise-sensitive uses. • Alternative mitigation may be considered for projects that would require pile driving or nighttime activities such as pumping or truck hauling. Departments: Community Development, Public Works Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: Development fees Time Frame: Ongoing N-P.6. Acoustical Studies Acoustical studies will be required for all discretionary projects where any of the following conditions apply: 8-58 City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) HB -429-Item 10. - 107 • The proposed project includes a noise-sensitive land use that is located within the existing or future (Figure N-2) 65 dBA CNEL contour for transportation noise sources. • The proposed project will cause future traffic volumes to increase by 25 percent or more on any roadway that fronts a sensitive land use. • The proposed project will expose a noise-sensitive land use to a stationary noise source or vibration source exceeding the standards outlined in the Noise Ordinance. Such stationary sources may include mechanical equipment operations, entertainment venues, and industrial facilities. • The proposed project includes a noise-sensitive land use in the vicinity of existing or proposed commercial and industrial areas. • The proposed project is a mixed-use development that includes a residential component. The focus of this type of acoustical study is to determine likely interior and exterior noise levels and to recommend appropriate design features to reduce noise. An acoustical analysis prepared in accordance with the Noise Element and the Huntington Beach Noise Ordinance (Section 8.40 of the Municipal Code) shall: • Be the financial responsibility of the applicant seeking City approval of a project.; • Be prepared by a qualified person experienced in the fields of environmental noise assessment and architectural acoustics.t • Include representative noise level measurements with sufficient sampling periods and locations to adequately describe local conditions and predominant noise sources,t Neoise level measurements must be conducted at the time of greatest potential for noise level increases above baseline conditions or allowed by law.; • Estimate existing and projected cumulative noise in terms of CNEL or L q , and compare those noise levels to Noise Element standards and policies; • Recommend appropriate mitigation to achieve compliance with Noise Element policies and standards. Where the noise source in question consists of intermittent single events, the report must address the effects of maximum noise levels in sleeping rooms in terms of possible sleep disturbance; and, • Estimate noise exposure after the prescribed mitigation measures have been implemented. Departments: Community Development Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: Development fees Time Frame: Ongoing City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) 8-59 HB -430-Item 10. - 108 • oIJwllllll I iu Public Facilities -Services and Infrastructure Element City Plans, Ordinances, and Programs PSI-P.1. Related Programs and Governmental Agencies Continue to ensure compliance with federal, state, and local programs and regulations, including but not limited to the following: • National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) • National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) • Municipal Separate Storm Water System Permit Program • Groundwater Management Act • California Public Resources Code • California Water Code • California Urban Water Management Planning Act • California Integrated Waste Management Act • California Education Code • Orange County NPDES Municipal Storm Water Permit Departments: Community Development, Public Works Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Source: General Fund, development fees Time Frame: Ongoing PSI-P.2. Fire and Emergency Response Performance Objectives Adopt locally defined performance objectives for fire, marine safety, and emergency response. Track compliance with adopted performance goals for fire and emergency medical services quarterly and report the information annually to the City Council and community residents. Use annual report results to modify and better locate fire resources (e.g., stations, equipment, personnel) to meet established emergency response performance objectives. Annually evaluate fire department staffing levels and workload projections, and modify the Capital Improvement Program and operations plans, as necessary, to ensure facilities, equipment, and personnel meet established performance objectives. City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) HB -431-Item 10. - 109 Department: Public Works Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Sources: General Fund Time Frame: Municipal Code revisions completed by 2020 PSI-P.7. Public Library Facilities Plan Establish and implement a public library facilities plan to: • Ensure the library system both meets California State Library recommended standards and adequately serves community needs. • Explore withEvaluato local school districts the use of school libraries serving as City library satellites. • Continue to support after-school programs, job training programs, workshops, and other activities. • Expand library outreach services for seniors and others who are physically unable to visit library facilities. • Explore all funding and grant options available to support upgrading library facilities and amenities; support library efforts to incorporate the best technology and facilities; and support technology and facility upgrade efforts in libraries to ensure community members have access to state-of-the-art amenities. Department: Library Services Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Sources: General Fund Time Frame: Facilities plan completed by 2020 PSI-P.8. Development Fees Perform a nexus fee study and revise City development fees to ensure that new development and reuse projects pay for a fair share of public infrastructure in a manner coordinated with improvements identified in the City's infrastructure management plans. Departments: Community Development, Public Works, Fire, Police, Library Services, Community Services Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Sources: General Fund Time Frame: Complete nexus fee study by 2020, update fees annually PSI-P.9. Police Department Annually review police department staffing levels and workload projections and modify the Capital Improvement Program and operations plans, as necessary, to ensure facilities, equipment, and personnel meet established performance objectives. Annually evaluate j I / 11 i f 8-63 City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) HB -432-Item 10. - 110 crime trends and police services, facilities, personnel, and response times relative to community needs and established state and federal standards. Departments: Police Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Sources: General Fund Time Frame: Ongoing, annually PSI-P.10. Special Events Review special events for the need to coordinate enhanced solid waste removal and police protection in conjunction with the permitting process. Identify fees associated with additional costs to be paid by event sponsors. Departments: Community Services Beach Division, Police Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Sources: General Fund, user fees Time Frame: Fee structure based on individual agreements or as events are proposed PSI-P.11. Public Service and Infrastructure Improvements Continue to adopt and update the City's operating budget to maintain adequate public services, facilities, and infrastructure, exceed national averages, and coordinate development of community facilities and amenities and capital projects. Evaluate the cost- effective provision of public services and seek innovative funding sources to provide services and maintain and upgrade existing infrastructure systems to counteract decreasing federal, state, and county funding sources, including grants, infrastructure financing districts, and other sources. Department: Public Works, Community Development Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Sources: General Fund, federal, state and county funds, grants, infrastructure financing districts Time Frame: Ongoing PSI-P.12. Infrastructure Technology Expand infrastructure technology in Huntington Beach by: • Partnering with local utility and telecommunication companies to coordinate and implement the most advanced and effective infrastructure technology possible. • Ensuring that budgeting for police, fire, and EMS services enables procurement of the most advanced technology accessible to aid in these services. City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) HB -433-Item 10. - 111 • Encouraging and facilitating the installation of fiber optic internet service starting in the Research and Technology designated industrial areas. • Evaluate a comprehensive information systems platform based on geospatial reckoning across all City departments to keep residents informed. Departments: Public Works, Fire, Police, City Manager's Office Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Sources: General Fund Time Frame: Ongoing PSI-P.13. Recycling and Composting In coordination with the City's waste hauler, build on existing waste collection and reduction programs to support California's goal of a 75 percent recycling rate by 2020 and to support long-term zero-waste efforts. Develop a composting program for commercial businesses, and expand participation to include single-family and multifamily residences as feasible. Identify materials that cannot be easily recycled or composted in Huntington Beach, and develop strategies that allow for effective diversion of these items. Improve the amount of construction and demolition (C&D) waste recycled in the community, and establish minimum diversion criteria that exceed state requirements for all future waste hauler contracts. Departments: Public Works Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Sources: General Fund Time Frame: Ongoing Capital Improvements PSI-P.14. Capital Improvement Program Use the City's 5-year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) process to prioritize, fund, and build required infrastructure and public facility improvements, including: • Wastewater collection facilities • Water supply and distribution facilities • Water storage and transmission facilities • Storm drain and flood control facilities Use public capital resources in combination with private financing sources and seek regional, state, and federal funds to supplement local funding of infrastructure projects listed in the CIP. City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) HB -434-Item 10. - 112 Department: Public Works Community Development Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Sources: Enterprise funds, service fees, impact fees, grants, General Fund Time Frame: Ongoing PSI-P.15. Storm Drain Improvements Design, preserve, and acquire land for water storage and transmission facilities, storm drain, and flood facilities. Provide for the construction of necessary pump and storage facilities to ensure adequate water supply and proper water system balance and the installation of stormwater drain gates. Evaluate existing environmental degradation or potential degradation from current or planned storm drain and flood control facilities in wetlands or other sensitive environments. Departments: Public Works Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Sources: Impact fees, grants, General Fund Time Frame: Ongoing PSI-P.16. Installation of Trash and Recycling Receptacles Design and install additional trash and recycling receptacles in public areas, including but not limited to Downtown, Beach Boulevard, City parks, and along the beach. Departments: Community Services, Public Works Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Sources: General Fund Time Frame: 2020 Development Review Requirements PSI-P.17. Development Review Through the development and design review processes for new development and reuse projects, require or continue to require the following: • That sufficient utility and water capacity is available. If sufficient capacity is not currently available, additional capacity or adequate mitigation shall be provided by the project. • Use of energy- and water-efficient fixtures and design elements to the maximum extent feasible consistent with City codes and policies. • Use of drought-tolerant and native landscaping to the maximum extent feasible consistent with City codes and policies. • Adequate receptacles for trash, recycling, and composting, as applicable. City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) 8-66 HB -435-Item 10. - 113 • Completion of studies to determine water and sewer right-of-way and infrastructure requirements for future development projects, including that study recommendations be incorporated into the design of proposed projects. Payment of costs associated with providing new and improving wastewater, stormwater, and solid waste services shall be the responsibility of the project applicant. • Incorporation of Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) techniques into site planning and architectural design including territoriality, natural surveillance, activity support, and access control. • Adequate street widths and clearance for emergency access and the provision of all appropriate safety features. • Evaluate the need for additional technology infrastructure in building design both from the street and within the building. Continue to consult with the fire and police departments and utility providers to: • Evaluate the need for additional fire and police facilities or resources to serve new development projects during the development review process. • Evaluate the need for safety features when improving streets and critical intersections. • Ensure capacity and infrastructure is adequate for the projected demand. Departments: Community Development, Fire, Police, Public Works Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Sources: General Fund Time Frame: Ongoing PSI-P.18. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Require new development and reuse projects to submit plans to demonstrate compliance with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements, including but not limited to: • Mitigation of pollutant flows. • Limitation of impervious surfaces. • Preservation and usage of natural filtration systems such as wetlands and bioswales. • Provision of on-site infiltration and runoff, as well as temporary on-site retention areas. • Limitation of disturbance to natural bodies of water, drainage systems, and highly erodible areas. • Use of pollution prevention measures, source controls, and treatment strategies. • Implementation of erosion protection during and after construction. City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) 8-67 HB -436-Item 10. - 114 1 m 1 emen a o I Department: Public Works. Community Development Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Sources: General Fund Time Frame: Ongoing Interiurisdictional Coordination PSI-P.19. Regional Coordination Coordinate with regional agencies, surrounding jurisdictions, and service providers on actions including: • Coordinating the installation or renovation of infrastructure to ensure compliance with regional plans and uninterrupted continuation of services across jurisdictional borders. • Maintaining an updated list of nonprofit organizations and interested parties, and ensuring they are included in planning decisions. • Working with state safety personnel to coordinate emergency response and safety efforts. Departments: Community Development, Public Works, City Manager's Office Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Sources: General Fund Time Frame: Ongoing PSI-P.20. School District Coordination Meet with local school districts to ensure continued coordination of maintenance and operations for the use of school facilities for public recreational activities, and the use of City parks for school educational purposes. Department: Community Services, City Manager's Office Related Policies: To be provided following adoption Funding Sources: General Fund Time Frame: Ongoing Public Information and Outreach PSI-P.21. Community-Based Crime Prevention Offer advice and support to community-based crime prevention efforts by neighborhood groups and civic organizations. Specific efforts may include, but are not limited to: 8-68 City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Draft, September 2017) HB -437-Item 10. - 115 resulting in tins pi of I IC lunge Item 8. - 399 tble to -Otange County s extremely low-meome households HB -614- Out of Reach 2017-The High Cost of Housing, National Low Income Housing CoaliliOn, p.38, 2017. Orange County Renters in Crisis: A Call for Action, California Housing Partnership Corporation, p. 1, May 2017, twKennedy COMMISSION August 14, 2017 Chair Connie Mandic and Planning Commission Members City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RE: Comments on Huntington Beach's General Plan Update - Land Use Element Dear Chair Mandic and Planning Commission Members: www.kenncdycoinniission.org 7701 COwan Ave., Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92614 949 250 0909 Fax 949 263 0647 The Kennedy Commission (the Commission) is a coalition of residents and community organizations that advocates for the production of homes affordable for families earning less than $20,000 annually in Orange County. Formed in 2001, the Commission has been successful in partnering with Orange County jurisdictions to create effective housing policies that have led to the now construction of homes affordable to lower income working families. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the City of Huntington Beach's General Plan Update. We have reviewed the draft and are submitting this letter to provide public comments. As the City moves forward with the update, the Commission urges the City to continue its support for the development of affordable homes and consider the following: 1. Revise Goal LU-4 Policy A to read as: Encourage a mix of residential types to accommodate people with diverse housing needs at all income levels. 2. Revise Goal LU-4 Policy E to read as: Encourage housing opportunities for all economic segments of the community to be located in proximity to employment to reduce vehicle miles traveled. 3. Include a stand-alone policy under Goal LU-4: Encourage the development of affordable homes for lower income households and workers in the City. 4. Ensure the update of the General Plan is consistent with the Housing Element pursuant to Section 65300,5 of the State Government Code. Ranked among the top ten least affordable metropolitan areas in the country, Orange County is suffering from an affordable housing crisis. A resident must earn at least $34.87 per hour to afford a two-bedroom apartment at a fair market rent of $1,813 a month.' As rents and the number of residents needing affordable homes have continually increased, the number of affordable homes being built for lower income households has not kept up with the demand. An additional 109,965 affordable rental homes are needed to address Orange County's housing needs for lower income renters.' HB -438-Item 10. - 116 Chair Mandie and Planning Commission Members August 14, 2017 Page 2 of2 Burdened by the high cost of housing, on a single night in January 2017, nearly 4,800 people experienced homelessness in Orange County. 3 The need to address this crisis is mgent, especially for homeless children. During the 2015 to 2016 school year, 28,450 students in grades Pre-K through 12 111 grade were identified as homeless living in unstable enviro1m1ents in the Orange County school districts.4 In addition, according to the recent release of the Cost Study of Homelessness, close to $300 million was spent to address homelessness in Orange County during 2014 to 2015.5 Studies have shown that affordable housing coupled with supportive services is a cost-efficient intervention that will safely house individuals experiencing chronic homelessness. With high housing costs and significant lack of affordable homes, many workers and families, especially those who earn lower wages, struggle financially to live in the city they work in. These impacts not only hurt workers and families but may also impact the city's economic competitiveness and attractiveness to major employers to provide jobs. Locating homes, specifically affordable homes, near transit, job centers and neighborhood services will decrease travel costs and allow individuals to save money and spend it elsewhere in the City. In particular, the environmental impacts of a development are especially less drastic when a person can afford to live and spend their money in the same community in which they work in. In 2017, the average commute time to work for Orange County residents was approximately 30 minutes and approximately 87% of commuters drove alone.6 Improving location accessibility and connectivity reduces the dependency for residents, especially for lower income households and workers, to drive their automobiles. This will lead to decreased environmental impacts, such as vehicles miles traveled (VMT) and greenhouse gas emissions, which will contribute to the project's overall purpose and intent to create a sustainable transit oriented neighborhood. The General Plan will also align with the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008 (SB 375) and help the City implement and comply with SB 375 goals of reducing VMT and greenhouse gas emissions. Please keep us infom1ed of any revisions, updates and meetings regarding the City's General Plan Update. If you have any questions, please contact me at (949) 250-0909 or cesarc@kennedycommission.org. Sincerely, Cesar Coval1'ubias Executive Director 1 Orange Counly Point in Time Count 2017, County of Orange, May 2017. 4 OC Comnumity Indicators 2017, Children and Fan1ilies Comn1ission of Orange County, p. 34, May 2017. 5 Cost Study of Homelessness Executive Summary, Orange County United Way, Jamboree and University of California, [rYine, p. 2, March 2017. 6 Profile of Huntington Beach, Southern California Association of Governments, p. 22, May 20 l 7. HB -615-Item 8. -400 HB -439-Item 10. - 117 Mary Adams Urashima Huntington Beach, California RE: DRAFT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Chairman Mandie and Members of the Planning Commission: August 15, 2017 I object to the removal of the Historic and Cultural Resources Element from the General Plan Update as a key element-if that is what this draft proposes. The staff memorandum states this element being "reformatted" upon adoption of the draft General Plan Update. The language needs some clarification and explanation into the public record. This element should be retained in the General Plan. If my interpretation of staff's language in the staff report is not accurate, I am happy to be corrected. My comments are to place emphasis on the Historic and Cultural Resources Element as a key tool for creating balance in community development, use of natural resources, and environmental and infrastructure impacts. I also have concerns about the proposed land use designation of "Research and Technology" for the Historic Wintersburg property, which appears to have been added to the Gothard Street corridor. The designation appears to have no policy or land use support for heritage preservation. I ask the City recognize community planning is about people, not about maximizing revenue from every single square inch in an institutional fashion. There is a social cost to removing cultural and historic features; we are seeing some of that today in our community. There also is an economic cost relating to lack of affordable and creative space for emerging entrepreneurs, dwindling places to encourage the well-behaved visitors interested in heritage tourism, and clear consumer interest by younger generations in less institutional, more authentic, historic places. Thousands of dollars were spent by the City on an outside consultant, as well as hundreds of collective hours by local historians (including myself) to update the City's historic resources survey. Through that process-while we did finally adopt the Mills Act for homeowners and businesses to alleviate some out- of-pocket costs for their historic preservation efforts-I learned there is internal resistance to designating historic districts and developing a citywide historic preservation ordinance. What this means is the City is preventing itself from becoming a "certified local government" and then cannot be eligible for other funds and grants that assist heritage preservation related development. The funding and economic development that can come from a citywide historic preservation ordinance- guided by a clear General Plan Historic and Cultural Resources Element-is successful in other cities. The mindset that heritage conservation and respect for cultural resources does not pay dividends is contradicted by countless real life examples. "Beach city identity and culture" (page 2 -26) Huntington Beach is more than a "beach city" culture and identity, which clearly places emphasis on one geographic part of this City as well as one group of people. The Native American, pioneer settlement, 1 Item 8. -401 HB -6 l 6-HB -440-Item 10. - 118 agricultural development, and historical periods that fostered pre-history settlement and trading with Catalina Island, tent cities and tent revivals, the establishment of missions, Civil War and World War II veteran history-just a few for example-are not recognized in a "beach city identity and culture" descriptor. I am reminded of the 1980s planning effort in Huntington Beach calling for a "Mediterranean theme". Please stop revising or editing the actual history and heritage of Huntington Beach. Communities are not enriched by perfectly aligned streets, mandated design, and a singular heritage. We are reducing the character to a very narrow focus. General Plan goals (page 2 -32) The draft update includes a statement regarding protection of "community character", by "continuing to preserve historic and cultural resources related to that 'Surf City' identity, such as older neighborhoods and historic buildings." Again, the vague "Surf City identity" seems to favor one narrow aspect of local heritage. This goal is contradicted by removal of the Historic and Cultural Resources Element. It's a nice statement, but if you don't identify in the General Plan what is historic and cultural, and how it will be preserved, then it can easily be ignored. This City has destroyed well over half, if not three-quarters, of the structures and places identified in the 1986 historic resources survey. The draft goal states "continuing to preserve", which clearly has not always been the case with a Historic and Cultural Resources Element as a key element. How will this goal be achieved without priority placed on a Historic and Cultural Resources Element? Enhancing tourism and hospitality (page 2 -40) The draft General Plan Update appears to focus on the beach area, Central Park, and the wetlands, and events such as the U.S. Open of Surfing and the Surf City Half Marathon. I agree these are prime areas and wonderful events. However, the focus appears to be on mega events focused in the downtown or beach area. Not everything has to be supersized. The policy of goal LU -14 is "Encourage both coastal and inland visitor-serving uses to offer a wide spectrum of opportunities for residents and visitors." However, the draft Update does not indicate or attempt to identify other areas in this community that represent local history or heritage. We're missing the boat by ignoring other parts of town and other types of events. In Los Angeles, the Los Angeles Conservancy developed an online crowdsourcing effort called Survey LA. Each neighborhood has the opportunity to weigh in with what is important to their community identity and history. Through this effort, they have identified and learned more about local heritage in a manner that has encouraged adaptive reuse type development, tourism and community pride. We live in a time where issues such as vandalism, litter, loitering, and public safety are highly vocal concerns by residents. There is a sense of frustration that the elements that people care about are being eliminated in a process that places more weight on visitors than residents. What better way to encourage community pride than by an effort to identify and highlight what residents find important. 2 HB -617-Item 8. -402 HB -441-Item 10. - 119 Infrastructure and "green" planning (page 4 -2) I am encouraged to see the recognition that the Historic and Cultural Resources Element is a companion element to the Environmental Resources and Conservation Element. Again, retaining the Historic and Cultural Resources Element as a key element of the General Plan is about more than historic preservation. It is about less wasteful, green development and careful management of impacts to infrastructure. High density over human-scale historic structures will create significant impacts to resources and infrastructure, not to mention traffic, air quality, and light and noise impacts. In resource conservation, "avoided" impacts are a tool that can also be used in urban planning. Research and Technology designation (page 2 -1 2) The draft plan creates a corridor for a "Research and Technology" designation, which is a linear area along Gothard Street, with the exception of carving out one 4 Y, acre parcel. That parcel is the National Treasure historic site referred to as Historic Wintersburg. There are less than 100 National Treasure historic sites in the United States; Historic Wintersburg is the first and only one in Orange County. Both the National Park Service and the National Trust for Historic Preservation have stated the property is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. The first time this property was noted as eligible for the National Register of Historic Places was over 30 years ago, by Caltrans in 1983. As this planning commission should know from the presentation at the July 17, 2017, City Council meeting by Historic Wintersburg and the Trust for Public Land, there is a current effort to purchase the property at market value for historic preservation as a heritage site and public park. The explanation in the draft plan is that Research and Technology will "promote provision of high- capacity data systems to support new development and reuse projects". The draft plan also explains this land use designation supports commercial and industrial uses, which are exactly the uses that prompted legal action in an earlier attempt at re-zoning. The draft Update's "statement of overriding considerations" makes the blanket statement that some historic resources may be impacted. The language on page 2 -12 states the Research and Technology designation is "Industrial". It further states "the designation encourages both employment uses and commercial uses designed to accommodate employees while continuing to allow many traditional industrial uses such as manufacturing and production uses. Uses include clean and green manufacturing (e.g., medical devices, solar panels}, research and development, technology, warehousing, business parks, professional offices, limited eating and drinking establishments that have an industrial component (e.g., a brewery}, restaurants and cafes to accommodate employment uses and surrounding residential neighborhoods entertainment, and similar neighborhood commercial uses." We could be back where we started. You are essentially rezoning the property under the draft General Plan for commercial/ industrial uses that previously were opposed. This creates additional complications in the middle of a process to purchase the property for historic preservation, something the property owner has stated they are open to. Historic preservation does not mean there cannot be Ite1n 8. -403 HB -618- 3 HB -442-Item 10. - 120 technological improvements and innovation; however, the designation of Research and Technology is appears to be not compatible with historic preservation and can lead to the destruction of significant historic resources. As the chair of the Historic Wintersburg Preservation Task Force, with a singular mission to save this National Treasure for future generations, there should be very clear, written explanation regarding why this parcel was singled out, what the Research and Technology designation is intended to do, and, how it supports the preservation of historic and cultural resources. The description for that land use designation does not support historic preservation or heritage park type uses. It leaves a lot of questions regarding the thought process and purpose of changing the land use. Without clarification in writing regarding the intent and historic resources protections, I would oppose the designation. It is unclear how it can be used and could be a tool for destruction of historic and cultural resources, contradictory to preservation of neighborhood character, and opening the door for higher density development with its associated impacts. Respectfully, Mary Adams Urashima Huntington Beach, California 4 HB -619-Item 8. -404 HB -443-Item 10. - 121 Villasenor, Jennifer From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: tony sellas [tony.sellas@gmail.com] Monday, August 07, 2017 10:32 PM Planning Commission Huntington Beach Circulation Element concerning Bike Classes Huntington Beach Circulation Element concerning Bike Classes.pdf Dear Planning Commission, Please enter my presentation into the record for the 8/8/2017 Plamling Study item A-1 (General Plan amendment). The May 2017 HB Circulation Element draft does not provide a traffic study for the proposed Class 1 Multi- Use Bike Path, Class 2 Bike lane, and Class 3 Bike Route. The City's Citizens should know what the final road design will be for the four-proposed road redesigns throughout the city. For example, does any of the three classes remove any lanes from the roads. Please see the attachment for further detail. Thank you for your service. Tony Sellas 1 Item 8. -405 HB -620-HB -444-Item 10. - 122 ~ s 00 .j:>. 0 0\ ~ a ee ,.,. u Bl 0'? kl fJ ji Draft Existing Circulation Conditions Technical Repo~ Traffic Study Huntington Beach General Pion Updole ,. Stantec Prepared for. City or Huntington aeach ~---'"''""'""~ nunun~ton D-ecernber19.2014 I I ¢6 I rna ~ ,1111 I From the Stantec study it provides a traffic study for many intersections in the city. There are about I/ 30 pages of different intersection studies. In the Draft, May 2017 HB Circulation Element does not provide any I intersection studies for the proposed Class 1 Multi-Use Bike Path, Class 2 Bike lane, and Class 3 Bike Routes. Please see the next slide. I Q~ w Bl ~ s:i;;: . Ill 'f \3 /) ------~---·------ I. Eolu J:ltl J; ; loll~ ](.lt J,:cilJ!iJ.t111:11m Mlm; :!ml = 1n1w.; :m11 = 1~l!l1m rn:,;m: ll'.li:lf.U R.r.n;Jl i..cr;:; mh:m \\)" 'l!C "· \"/( CJ.::C> JIPIOIY W, t1' "' " m ' ) '" :.; ll m m I") .m ll' UE; ,;,, ~!r :.; ~Ill 11 .(J• " ·'" :;t ' 1T)) m ll .r; ,;( I~< ' :i• .:1 JI: .• ~J.' im Ill u.· '1) .:(• p~ '.) " "' ' l;l) llSl ,, m; .:c m _,; ~W" J .1·;· " ·"' "' ' ) ) m j) .I·. " .r.~ m ' l l l no nl ,, .1'1 " .(: "' ,, l l ' "' ;:o m .w !>(• .C!' m " ' l l m ' ··~) "' ·" " .ll ~. rn " ,;;• '" ~· ';'l;; :·~i 'il .:1• m ·"· ! OlJ l l "' ' l'.Q) m .ol m .0 ,. "" !;.: ,}( ;•ll .:J ., l :•ol " ,0'1 ' ·" I ~:ri"i;'.1= IOR .J' h.;ntlmld'.\.!tr&ll: l.\\ ,01· 10~ .11· Ciom>:!l.U,.JI .ll' .ll' !.!1r<tC.[nt:el\l' ,w .(!• io~:1mmMlplltlll,L'l"J tat WXl'n W!Wlo.T)l! ·" u ltlruW.!tm~ ·" ...:'1 l.~~7:1ol1i:11=i.11.ia l, !inrir 11; i »lo Al' <:wtll; ta:!(J ·::0:.,~ tliltlr.;(lCH)(rn! ~I 1! Ci/JI'· N1!1 J~c: ),\fl:W;"• m'>m ',\~ m;t:'..'! '" ·110 lL v:-: :.:rn ::;,r~::m l·:L , .. , \~' ~!< ,. ' l!r. ' ,,.,. , _;; i:-:.t. F)) " j' '' .ti .~ ' l!(I( ir. .ri l"l .!£' m 11)) Hi '11' ~:1 ,!!• '$ j '" " .r,1 JO .• iGk jJ> 'ID ; "' .1-1 x ·~ "' .:1 "' .u· O'I. t:)J :in :1· IH .l•l' ~ '~ rn _;:;-m ,!) .Ji! lllll " .11 H~ ·" ~ rn: "' .u n -' " "' ' "' " ,{•' "' ' m: , .E• m ·" OOL mu '° ~;· '" ·" ~ ' 1:(1; m .oi )1J ,ll' m ' mi '" " ~;o .1t· ~ j l~ u ·' 0 ·' m j Im IO Ol " ,(•! m "" m .1: "' .,. ·~-1m uo " " .v« m l m: m .'l<' r.i~ ·' m l 'il!ll "" 1'' " .v: "' j llC! l~D .a! "' -' i;,1 ' m; J(ll E :su ·" :w.rn:.Ir.lmil .J:.• ·" :!<:o:u;: rr.1~,.,.,L ~;· .0' ll'.:llLlllelltl1!'Jt'ltlWSl " .. l:WWl'Oil'.mr=al • ·" -CG HB -445-Item 10. - 123 -0 c >-£ c ""O +-' ro ai +-' bl) r +-' ::> ro V> ro ·;;; 0 +-' ""O "-v' +-' c .c QJ c "' QJ ::> QJ c :;: ""O " \:'.'. u "' "' 0 N ""O "' !2 L 80 (LJ ti= o~ a:: 5 :;: ""O ::> ro 0 a. "' Ji Ji ro J> 0 N C ro 0 0 0 L ""O L QJ L 0 +-' L co co -"' c ""O ro +:i +-' a. "' >--" iii QJ QJ c QJ (LJ ::::i .c ~ !2 ""O "' !Y) +-' :!::! c +-' "' (LJ .J:: ,..!.. u 0 ::> E ·:; +-' ~ "' "' ::> <.:: L a. QJ u 0 L ::> "' "' QJ 0 QJ J> 0 L (LJ ro ro .c u L Q ~ u u .c .c .c L I-;:;:; a.'<--I-"' +-' .~ a. ' Item 8. -407 HB -622- ,,; c bl) ·u; QJ ""O QJ L l • I V> QJ QJ 0 ""O QJ L .c (LJ +-' a. QJ E .c +-' ro '<--x QJ 0 L >-0 c u.. ro ' • j l ' ' 11 >-""O c ro ro e QJ (LJ > 0 .c E +-' E (LJ L 0 L "' '<--(LJ "' "' "' "' ro c u !2 IH "' >- E .c 5 0 "' a. +-' ""O ro o QJ E c a; ~ ..Cl "' ro !2 .c +-' "' >-+-' E (LJ -;: <'· (LJ ro +-' e L QJ 0 u.. +-' u z "' ~ ~i '7 ~ h 0 >t fY.: j; 0 ;g;_ ,, :'.:! It ll " ·"' ' ~ '~ ' ·~ '" HB -446-Item 10. - 124 Villasenor, Jennifer From: Gino J. Bruno [gbruno@socal.rr.com] Monday, June 12, 201710:43 AM Planning Commission Sent: To: Cc: Subject: CITY COUNCIL; Wilson, Fred; Hess, Scott; Villasenor, Jennifer General Plan Update -El R Commissioners: At your meeting tomorrow (Tuesday) evening, you will be presented with an overview of the draft General Plan Update, including the EIR, and you will be offering feedback on the topics to be discussed at upcoming study sessions. I urge you to consider, as a priority, a study session detailing the Transportation and Traffic section of the EIR (Section 4.14). I have commenced my review of the EIR, which includes the following projections and other matters that are important over the next 25 years [bracketed page numbers below reference the EIR]: 1. It is projected that there will be 7,228 more dwelling units added within the city. [p. 4.14-10] 2. It is projected that there will be approximately 5,384,920 square feet of nonresidential uses added. [p. 4. 14-10] 3. Multi-family residential units will increase from 40,201to48,790, or an increase of 21%. [p. 4.14-11] 4. Average daily traffic (ADT) related to schools will increase by 10%. [p. 4.14-11] 5. The General Plan Update would result in an increase of about 148,000 daily trips. [p. 4.14-11] 6. The EIR concludes that average daily traffic will increase by 9% over the next 25 years. [p. 4.14-10] 7. Only three intersections are recommended for reconfiguration to help alleviate (mitigate) current and future congestion, namely, Gothard & Center, Brookhurst & Adams, and Beach and Heil. [p. 4.14- 12, et seq.] 8. Despite the fact that the last General Plan Update was done in 1996, a conclusion has been reached in the EIR that the average daily traffic has DECREASED in the city since the year 2005 (with no comparison to 1996, nor source cited for any 2005 base-year figure). [p. 4.14-1] 9. The EIR references and relies upon public transportation (OCTA), although press reports indicate that such public transportation ridership is down, and some routes discontinued or re-routed. [p. 4.14-5] 1 O. ''This analysis did NOT identify any effects found NOT to be significant for transportation/traffic resulting from implementation of the General Plan Update." (Emphasis supplied, and which statement I find unintelligible with the double negative. I read it to say, "This analysis DID identify effects found to be significant for transportation/traffic resulting from implementation of the General Plan Update.") [p. 4.14-9] Most troubling to me is the fact that, with all of the projections cited above, along with others, the EIR concludes, regarding Transportation and Traffic: HB -623-Item 8. -408 HB -447-Item 10. - 125 "IMPLEMENTATION OF THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE WOULD NOT RESULT IN ADVERSE IMPACTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT REGARDING TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC; THUS, THERE ARE NO SIGNIFICANT OR UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS." [p. 4.14-23] Common sense, logic, personal observations, and bad past Huntington Beach experiences suggest to me that there will be a very significant adverse impact on transportation and traffic from the projected uses described in the General Plan Update that are NOT mitigated by this Report, and thus, I would hope you would ask for much more clarification on traffic in an upcoming Study Session. Thank you. Gino J. Bruno Huntington Beach Item 8. -409 HB -624-HB -448-Item 10. - 126 Villasenor, Jennifer From: Sent: To: Subject: Dan Jamieson [broker_advocate@hotmail.com] Monday, July 10, 2017 1:03 PM Villasenor, Jennifer GP update comments, for study session (also sent 7-7-17) Dear Planning Commission: Thank you for taking comment on the Huntington Beach (City) General Plan update (GPU). My suggested changes and comments follow. Specify Goals for Parks, Open Space, Trails The GPU should better explain park-service areas and buffers, and include a park-deficit analysis for each service area. (See, for e.g., the Newport Beach GP and its narrative for park service areas. http:/h1ww.newportbeachca.gov/PLN/General_Plan/09 _ Ch8 _Recreation_ web.pdf). The current draft GPU is unclear in this regard, and gives the City no guidance as to which areas of the City might be underserved by parks. The City should also maintain its cmTent stated 5.4 acres of parkland for every 1,000 residents. The 5- acre goal sets too low a bar, essentially giving the City permission to continue its high rate of development without adding any new parks or open space. The GPU should include an affirmative statement that the City will dedicate the appropriate developer fees for the acquisition of new parks and open space. Furthermore, the City's parkland acreage total should include just the first 100 feet of beach, sintllar to Newport Beach's policy. The GPU should include language about improving public access to coastal areas, especially Huntington Harbor, where public access to the bay is severely limited. This should include enhanced access with waterfront public walkways, and protection from encroachments such as piers, floats, bulkheads and private/gated communities. The final GPU should also mention the planned improvement of the City-owned rail spur in No1ih Huntington Beach, previously the Navy railroad right-of-way (Navy ROW). The draft GPU notes that parts of HB -625-Item 8. -410 HB -449-Item 10. - 127 the Union Pacific Raihoad right-of-way running east of Gothard Street is designated for a future transportation corridor. The Navy ROW 1uns generally east-west and connects with this Union Pacific spur, which runs north- south. Since the Navy ROW is aheady abandoned, it should be a priority for improvement as part of a future regional multi-use trailway. Indeed, the City has planned and budgeted money for this very purpose. (The city of Westminster has similar plans for its section of the Navy ROW. Unfmtunately, a misguided plan to store cars on the City portion of the Navy ROW seems to have delayed implementation of the trailway plan.) Ultimately, the Navy ROW spur and the Union Pacific right-of-way could connect into a much broader regional transpmtation system. Plus, an improved Navy ROW would be a wonderful attraction for employees who work in and around the McDonnell Centre Business Park and desire a quick break from city life. All of these railroad right-of-way projects would support the General Plan's goal of preserving railroad right-of-ways and improving transportation and recreational oppmtunities. Consider Extending the new Research & Technology Zoning to the McDonnell Centre Business Park Specific Plan north of Bolsa Avenue. Promote Green Development. The GPU proposes a new land-use designation, Research and Technology (RT), to enable a broader mix of lower-intensity industrial and commercial uses to attract new, growing businesses to the City. The current GPU proposed RT zoning south of Bolsa A venue only. However, implementing RT development in this area will require the turnover and redevelopment of individual parcels. This will be a slow, patchwork process, unlikely to create the kind of environment that cutting-edge employers will desire. In addition to a high-bandwidth infrastructure, these finns will want restaurants, entertainment and other visitor- serving and commercial anienities. Open areas for eating, meeting and breaks from the workday will also be desired. Additionally, walkways and bike trails would be key additions to attract tech firms. All of these anienities are in short supply south ofBolsa, or simply do not exist. Further, the existing parcels south ofBolsa are generally small, raising the question of whether many of these parcels will be large enough to accommodate the light manufacturing planned for the RT area. However, as Boeing exits the McDom1ell Centre Business Park (MCBP) area, most of its existing land will be available for redevelopment. As a result, the City should consider the MCBP area for the new RT zoning. Large-scale redevelopment in the MCBP will be a prime opportunity to "jump start" implementation of the new RT zoning on a sizeable and integrated parcel, and begin to attract the kind of high-growth, high-value businesses and jobs the City desires. Within the RT zoning in the current MCBP area, the City should consider a mix of shops and eating/drinking establishments, open areas, public walking and biking space, and recreational facilities. I generally support the concept outlined in LU-P.14 of the GPU, allowing housing inRT areas. Any housing should be compatible with the zoning. For exaniple, industrial, loft-type housing, plugged into the high- bandwidth of the area, located above or incorporated with nonresidential buildings, could help attract high tech Item 8. -411 HB -626-HB -450-Item 10. - 128 businesses and employees, the latter of which could walk or bike to work. The typical condos, townhomes and other multi-story residential units that litter much of the City now should not be built in RT-zoned parcels and would do nothing to distinguish RT-zoned areas. Please keep in mind that the MCBP area is the main entry point to the City's N01thwest corner. The current Boeing facility has a recreation area with ball fields, tennis cou1ts, a gym, basketball and volleyball comts, and landscaping including eucalyptus groves. The prope1ty makes a positive impression of the City as visitors enter. It would be a shame if the campus-like setting of the current Boeing property was lost to more of the non-descript warehouses that exist north of the property. These look-alike warehouses are carbon copies of industrial properties that can be found anywhere in Southern California. Building more of these buildings at the Northwest gateway to the City would mark Huntington Beach as just another faceless, sprawling suburb, rather than the type of world-class research and technology center that the City envisions. The General Plan should promote green development, including in the MCBP and RT zoned land. This should include provisions for green, energy-efficient and self-sufficient buildings, use of native plants and water-wise landscaping, prohibitions on the use of the wasteful turf slopes used by many commercial buildings, and inclusion of public open areas and walkways/trails within any development plans. Green development will help attract clean and green manufacturing. Finally, please note that the Northwest Industrial Subarea is also bordered by residential areas to the north (Spa Drive and sun-ounding streets). This fact should be incorporated into the GPU. The draft GPU says the area is bordered to the north by collllllercial developments and the 405 freeway. Sincerely, Dan Jamieson Huntington Beach HB -627-Item8.-412 HB -451-Item 10. - 129 Villasenor, Jennifer From: Sent: To: Subject: Hi Jennifer, Larkin [wslarkin@yahoo.com] Thursday, July 13, 2017 11:39 AM Villasenor, Jennifer; Semeta, Lyn; Peterson, Erik; cmandic@surfcity-hb.org; Hopkins, Travis HB General Plan Updates 1 wanted to follow up on our earlier email exchange regarding a summary of the proposed changes I input to the HB General Plan from the last HB Planning review. 1 wanted review the commentary I changes proposed by the Planning Commission to check what I thought I heard and gauge what might be coming forth into the GP document. Of particular interest is the language I changes being drafted in the HB General Plan regarding HB's mineral rights/ leases and more importantly, the language regarding the GP's guidance and actions regarding a potential sea level I tide encroachment into the low level lands in HB and the Harbor area. There was some commentary by one of the planning commissioners that had me concerned that language within the GP could lead to HB taking a passive role on rising tides with a 'nature taking its course' approach, resulting in HB homeowners in the harbor and low lying areas exposed to rising sea levels with a GP policy that hadn't been fully explained or understood by those affected. In regards to the mineral I oil leases, I was also concerned with some commentary from the planning commission that language in the GP should discourage new leases. Considering HB is challenged with the revenues vs current expenditures ( not to mention future needs, especially infrastructure ), why would we want to draft language that discourages or handcuffs HB 's ability to derive revenue from any of its resources? As long as we insure environmental safeguards, policies are in place we should insure we leave all the doors open as no one can project what the needs, demands and opportunities might exist 30 years from now. To that end, just as we should be environmentally responsible, we should be fiscally responsible and be careful in not bracketing in our options going forward. No doubt I may be off from what I might of heard during the meeting vs what was said, hence my wanting to review a summary. If you have a chance to shoot me a copy, it would be greatly appreciated. As an FYI, you've probably already seen this recent article, but just in case, here's a link. https://www.google.com/ arnp/www.ocregister.com/2017 /07 /l 2/ scientists-predict-parts-of-southern-califomia- could-face-chronic-flooding-from-rising-sea-levels/ arnp/ Lastly, I did notice within the GP, (similar to the last one), if somone wasn't familiar with HB, you almost wouldn't notice that HB Harbor existed. It's almost like a footnote ( along with Sunset Beach ). There is lots to say about the Belle Terra and HB Pier areas, but I think I got to page 10 before the harbor was even mentioned. Item 8. -413 HB -628-HB -452-Item 10. - 130 Considering this is a 30 year plan, it seems that the harbor area and Sunset are remaining in the backwaters for a longer time than necessary (at least in regards to ties to a larger a larger HB development or promotion vision). It would be great to see or discuss some General thoughts on this. Thanks in advance Bill Larkin HB Public Works Commissioner 949-310-5118 Sent from my iPhone HB -629-Item 8. -414 HB -453-Item 10. - 131 Villasenor, Jennifer From: Gino J. Bruno [gbruno@socal.rr.com] Sunday, July 23, 2017 2:46 PM Planning Commission Sent: To: Cc: Subject: CITY COUNCIL; Wilson, Fred; Hess, Scott; Villasenor, Jennifer General Plan Update -EIR Commissioners: At your meeting this Tuesday evening, you will be presented with a focus on the Transportation and Traffic section of the General Plan Update's supporting EIR. [Bracketed page numbers below reference the EIR]: 1. It is projected that there will be 7,228 more dwelling units added within the city. [p. 4.14-10] 2. It is projected that there will be approximately 5,384,920 square feet of nonresidential uses added. [p.4.14-10] 3. Multi-family residential units will increase from 40,201 to 48,790, or an increase of 21 %. [p. 4. 14-11] 4. Average daily traffic (ADT) related to schools will increase by 10%. [p. 4.14-11] 5. The General Plan Update would result in an increase of about 148,000 daily trips. [p. 4. 14-11] 6. Average daily traffic will increase by 9% over the next 25 years. [p. 4. 14-10] 7. Only three intersections are recommended for reconfiguration to help alleviate (mitigate) current and future congestion, namely, Gothard & Center, Brookhurst & Adams, and Beach & Heil. [p. 4.14-12, et seq.] 8. The EIR references and relies upon public transportation (OCTA), although press reports indicate that such public transportation ridership is down, and some routes discontinued or re-routed. [p. 4.14-5] Considering those findings and conclusions by the authors of the EIR, do you question the EIR conclusion that, regarding Transportation and Traffic: "IMPLEMENTATION OF THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE WOULD NOT RESULT IN ADVERSE IMPACTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT REGARDING TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC; THUS, THERE ARE NO SIGNIFICANT OR UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS." [p. 4.14-23] Common sense, logic, personal observations, and bad past Huntington Beach experiences suggest to me that of course there will be a very significant adverse impact on transportation and traffic from the projected uses described in the General Plan Update that are NOT mitigated by this Report. Thank you. Gino J. Bruno Huntington Beach Ite1n 8. -415 1-IB -630-HB -454-Item 10. - 132 Villasenor, Jennifer From: Kalmick, Dan Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 20171:23 AM Villasenor, Jennifer; James, Jane Hess, Scott; Vigliotta, Mike To: Cc: Subject: FW: General Plan Update -EIR Hi, I'd like to have the following email chain entered as late communication. The following is an email conversation from last month whereby I thoroughly answer all of these same questions. Dan Kalmick, Past Chair Huntington Beach Planning Commission Dan.Kalmick@surfcity-hb.org (562) 397-3635 From: Kalmick, Dan Sent: Monday, June 12, 2017 7:23 PM To: 'Gino J. Bruno' <gbruno@socal.rr.com> Subject: RE: General Plan Update -EIR Hey Gino, I'm running out of time today, but I wanted to quickly respond to your points and hopefully point you in some directions for some more information. But let's grab a coffee soon! I wantto better understand where you're coming from and also see if I can explain a little bit more about my public policy position. You've taken a few shots at me on Facebook with some assumptions that aren't true. Obviously I think we have some disagreements on role of government but I think you've thrown me over the cliff on a lot of issues I think we agree on before you even know what my opinion is on them. 1. Right. 2. I honestly haven't gotten to the transportation section yet. I haven't evaluated the traffic counts nor the methodology. If you took my Information below to be anything more than informational or explanatory, I apologize. If you'd like to know what I think, just ask:) 3. The data doesn't support this for all primary and secondary intersections (at least in March of 2014}. See 2014 Traffic Counts http://www.huntingtonbeachca.gov/files/users/planning/Volume-lll- Appendix-B-Circulation-Traffic-Study.pdf Page 30 and 31. Then go onto Page 60 and 61 to see the impacts 2040 and assumes build out of the current BESCP with all mitigation measures. I haven't gotten into this to check for consistency when being brought forward to the EIR. The raw traffic counts are in the back. 5) OCTA is a mess right now. They're looking into anything and everything to stop the slide in ridership (I'm Vice Chair of OCT A's Citizens Advisory Committee ... I go to a lot of transit meetings). I think you'll see on demand ride sharing services start to take over for the less used bus routes (already a pilot in San Clemente). I'll have to dig Into the EIR, but I'm pretty sure they don't assume massive public transit to offset VMT. I'm hopeful that Autonomous Vehicles will help alleviate traffic (and parking). The safety technology alone is pretty cool. My new car has adaptive cruise control and it's pretty hairy going from 65mph to zero without touching the brakes. 6) I agree, everyone thinks that traffic is the worst. This is what the EIR comment period is for. If you can draw a clear line from the narrative to the conclusions not being supported by documentation within the appendices then you have a solid argument that'll have to be addressed in the response to comments. Unfortunately, this en•"" ha HB-631-Item8.-416 HB -455-Item 10. - 133 mooted by a Statement of Overriding Consideration even if the EIR came back and said yes, there are Significant and Unavoidable Impacts. In fact, there are several already that will be required for this EIR: Air Quality, Cultural Resources, GHGs, Noise and Utilities and Service Systems. 7) I was making joke. Sorry. 8) yah, no idea on this one. I think someone was trying to be too smart 9) Mitigation measures, probably not. Policies ... absolutely! This was why there was a GPAC and public outreach and comments period. The City wanted people to create visions for what the City was and then policies to help guide the zoning code and future projects. In order to not approve a project as being, for example too dense or inappropriate use, we have to find it inconsistent with polices in the General Plan. That's the nexus. If the General Plan doesn't include polices that limit growth then projects can't be denied. (also .. $1.2mil collected from developer fees over the last several years .. c'mon ... I thought we all went over that when we started this 3 years ago) 10) Developer Fees are absolutely a lever the City can pull. We have a number offees I'm sure you're already familiar with, but getting as much public benefit our a project as the City can is worth looking into. I'm not sure where I've come across with my position on the GPU, I only finished my first pass last week and I'm barely though the EIR. I've been trying to explain how the EIR process works or how it came to those conclusions as well as cite some additional resources. I haven't yet come to a conclusion yet on this process. I just submitted about 6 pages of notes and questions to staff on the GPU, suggesting adding, strengthening, weakening and removing polices. So I still haven't gotten my arms around it. I hope that you'll continue to comment as we go forward as your input is what helps to make the General Plan represent everyone's point of view. Have a great night Gino! And let's meet up when you have some time. Thanks I Dan Kalmick, Past Chair Huntington Beach Planning Commission Dan.Kalmick@surfcity-hb.org (562) 397-3635 From: Gino J. Bruno [mailto:gbruno@socal.rr.com] Sent: Monday, June 12, 2017 2:54 PM To: Kalmick, Dan <Dan.Kalmick@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: RE: General Plan Update -EIR Dan, 1. The proposed GPU is for a general city-wide plan, and not a "no project" alternative. 2. It's clear to me that you agree with the EIR conclusion that ADT has decreased, city-wide, between 2005 and 2014. Respectfully, I doubt that many residents who drive around this city would agree. 3. The LOS at many key intersections are rated "F" I believe, and there is no mitigation proposed here, except for the three cited intersections. 4. The HBTM was established in 2009, before the BECSP was adopted, but is apparently heavily relied upon in this EIR. From the traffic congestion we see all around town, it is unfuzzy to me that the 2009 HBTM was a failure, and the handful of roadway configuration changes that you reference are relatively insignificant in mitigating the adverse traffic impact of the BECSP and its brethren. Ite1n 8. -417 HB -632-HB -456-Item 10. - 134 5. According to news reports, there is little chance that OCTA (currently losing ridership and which is revamping its routes to accommodate) will add buses or vanpools, and yet the EIR blindly assumes it will. 6. I do not find the EIR "an unreadable legal document." What I find is the conclusions are not supported by the narrative (nor by the facts on the ground, experienced by virtually everyone who drives this city). 7. To me, "there are no significant or unavoidable impacts" is pretty "emphatic" although you may find it laughable or the language not to your liking. I don't find much wiggle room in that statement, so, to me, it's emphatic. You may enjoy a differing definition. 8. And, on the subject of the meaning of words, please tell me what this sentence means: "This analysis did not identify any effects found not to be significant for transportation/traffic resulting from implementation of the General Plan Update." [p.4.14-9] I learned that two negatives create a positive in language. Agree? 9. Regarding your proposal that I "suggest mitigation measures or policies," let's be clear here -it's not my job to suggest mitigation measures or policies. It seems to me that would have been the job of the company to whom the city paid $2 million; and in my view, it has failed so to do. 10. And regarding measures to decrease buildout, you might check this morning's Los Angeles Times article, that discusses adding a new "developer fee," the proceeds from which would go to help the homeless (or so they say). One of the arguments against the new fee is that it would stifle development. Your position on this GPU proposal is clear to me, and I'm sure mine is clear to you, and the two appear irreconcilable. Yes, I do plan to attend the PC meeting ... Gino From: Kalmick, Dan [mailto:Dan.Kalmick@surfcity-hb.org] Sent: Monday, June 12, 2017 12:35 PM To: Gino J. Bruno <gbruno@socal.rr.com> Subject: RE: General Plan Update -EIR Good questions: This GPU actually decreases development from the No Project alternative (check out EIR page [5-10]), that is to say if we keep the current General Plan's Land Use Element. So the way CEQA evaluates traffic is based on LOS (it also looks at VMT but for the sake of simplicity let's use LOS}. LOS is of course Level of Service. The City set its threshold for each intersection. The traffic model is run with an ADT increase of 148,000 cars (or whatever the number is) and then they do traffic mitigation (widening intersections, adding turn lanes}. Then run the model again and look at LOS at intersections. Essentially what "no significant impacts" means is that the intersections still function at or below the standard with 9% traffic increase and full Implementation of all mitigation measures. Unfortunately some of these mitigation measures will never get built (see next paragraph) BESCP has a full list of intersection mitigation measures that would be completed at full build out (http:/lwww.huntingtonbeachca.gov/files/users/planning/Beach-Edinger-Corridors-Specific-Plan2015-Amended-Final- Adopted.pdf-start on page 130}. Some have already been implemented. Northbound #4 on Beach Blvd at Edinger now goes through instead of ending (I live right here and it's made a HUGE difference). Eastbound right turn lane at Edinger HB -633-Item 8. -418 HB -457-Item 10. - 135 and Beach to go SB Beach Blvd will be extended all the way in front of the new Marriott once construction is finished. The City looked at the Beach and Warner right turn pocket (Westbound to Northbound) but updated the traffic counts and it didn't need it so they couldn't use the Measure M match for the Traffic Mitigation funding money. The rest of the mitigation measures get implemented as projects come forward and pay their fair share. Do note that less than half of the EIR evaluated projects came online in the BECSP so full mitigation money hasn't been paid. There are a few other projects in CIP this year from mitigation money. The 405 expansion project (don't get me started on that nightmare) will actually implement a few more just by design. Personally, I think LOS is outdated and VMT along with its mitigation will be much more realistic in mitigating projects. If you have 4 buildings on an intersection and the LOS mitigation is to add a turn pocket, but that'll never happen because the buildings will never move, then you have mitigation on paper only. VMT mitigation goes to things like add buses and van pools (funding transit) that can actually take cars off the road (I'm not saying that this actually happens ... but at least it's better than NEVER getting a turn pocket unless there's a massive earthquake). Keep In mind that the EIR is an unreadable legal document. So its terminology Isn't emotional. You made me laugh when you used the word "emphatically" below. The metrics for the EIR evaluation for Significant, Less than Significant and Not Significant are defined terms based on standards the City, County, State and Feds set. And this is a Program EIR not a Project EIR so there is no specific project outlined (This frustrates me to no end when trying to figure out mitigation measures) and thus there are outs since the EIR just has to assume 1.7% in five year increments until 2040 at allowed densities and FARs. I think that everyone would prefer it to overestimate and therefore require more mitigation for traffic and growth than to underestimate and then not have any legal standing to require the mitigation in the future. Now ... here's where you can have a direct impact. Suggest mitigation measures or policies that would have the potential to decrease build out. This would include downzoning property or mandating developer fees or when mitigation measures are implemented. Thanks for your questions. As always, email or call if you have any questions. If I can't answer them, I'll make sure to get an answer from staff and get back to you. Dan Kalmick, Past Chair Huntington Beach Planning Commission Dan.Kalmick@surfcitv-hb.org (562) 397-3635 ·co-.--~------------~-~-.. ~--· ------·--~•~·-·-·------··------- From: Gino J. Bruno [mailto:gbruno@socal.rr.com] Sent: Monday, June 12, 2017 11:34 AM To: Kalmick, Dan <Dan.Kalmick@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: RE: General Plan Update -EIR Thanks, Dan, for your quick response ... If, as a result of the proposed GPU, 7,228 dwelling units could be constructed, 5,384,920 sq. ft. of nonresidential uses could be added, multi-family residential units could increase by 21 %, ADT related to schools could be increased by 10%, daily trips could increase by 148,000, ADT could increase by 9%, etc., then ... . . . how can it be that the EIR emphaticalfv concludes (after evaluating the "worst case scenarios" (as you put it)) that" implementation of the General Plan Update WOULD NOT result in adverse impacts on the environment regarding transportation and traffic; thus there are no significant or unavoidable impacts .... "? [Emphasis supplied] Secondly, the BE CSP was adopted in 201 O (and Bella Terra before that). If those specific plans provided for intersection mitigation measures, when will they be implemented (after all, it's been at least six years)? Item 8. -419 HB -634-HB -458-Item 10. - 136 Gino From: Kalmick, Dan [mailto:Dan.Kalmick@surfcity-hb.org] Sent: Monday, June 12, 2017 11:02 AM To: Gino J. Bruno <gbruno@socal.rr.com> Subject: RE: General Plan Update -EIR Hi Gino, Thanks for your email. This is a large complicated document so any inconsistencies that people find are extremely helpful. I wanted to give you a few notes so that as you continue to evaluate the EIR you can keep them in mind: CEQA vice a vie the EIR is a legal document trying to check boxes. It has to make projections based on maximum build out of current allowed zoning. Since the only change in land use is some areas going from Industrial to R&T, the population growth in residential is based on areas like Holly Seacliff. Holly Seacliff didn't build out to the maximum densities allowed so in theory it could be all torn down and rebuilt at higher densities and therefore the GP EIR has to account for worst case scenarios. I would point out, that you've replaced word "could" with "will" in your transcription from the EIR to your notes below. With regard to intersections, a lot of the other intersections have mitigations measures in place by specific plans (BECSP and Bella Terra) and therefore are not enumerated. I believe this is discussed in Voll of the Technica I backup for the Circulation Element. I don't think these items will be fully addressed at this meeting as we're going to focus on the GP doc itself. The EIR will be looked at during the June 27th study session. Unfortunately Study Sessions aren't televised, so I would hope that you can attend. I will make sure we address all of your questions and we'll evaluate the assumptions made for the data sets. Please feel free to email me or give me a call if you have any additional questions, Dan Kalmick, Past Chair Huntington Beach Planning Commission Dan.Kalmick@surfcity-hb.org (562) 397-3635 ---·----·---·--~~---- From: Gino J. Bruno [mailto:gbruno@socal.rr.com] Sent: Monday, June 12, 2017 10:43 AM To: Planning Commission <planning.commission@surfcity-hb.org> Cc: CITY COUNCIL <city.council@surfcity-hb.org>; Wilson, Fred <Fred.Wilson@surfcity-hb.org>; Hess, Scott <scott.hess@surfcity-hb.org>; Villasenor, Jennifer <JVillasenor@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: General Plan Update -EIR Commissioners: At your meeting tomorrow (Tuesday) evening, you will be presented with an overview of the draft General Plan Update, including the EIR, and you will be offering feedback on the topics to be discussed at upcoming study sessions. HB -635-Item 8. -420 HB -459-Item 10. - 137 I urge you to consider, as a priority, a study session detailing the Transportation and Traffic section of the EIR (Section 4.14). I have commenced my review of the EIR, which includes the following projections and other matters that are important over the next 25 years [bracketed page numbers below reference the EIR]: 1. It is projected that there will be 7,228 more dwelling units added within the city. [p. 4.14-10] 2. It is projected that there will be approximately 5,384,920 square feet of nonresidential uses added. [p. 4.14-10] 3. Multi-family residential units will increase from 40,201 to 48,790, or an increase of 21 %. [p. 4.14-11] 4. Average daily traffic (ADT) related to schools will increase by 10%. [p. 4.14-11] 5. The General Plan Update would result in an increase of about 148,000 daily trips. [p. 4.14-11] 6. The EIR concludes that average daily traffic will increase by 9% over the next 25 years. [p. 4.14-1 OJ 7. Only three intersections are recommended for reconfiguration to help alleviate (mitigate) current and future congestion, namely, Gothard & Center, Brookhurst & Adams, and Beach and Heil. [p. 4.14- 12, et seq.] 8. Despite the fact that the last General Plan Update was done in 1996, a conclusion has been reached in the EIR that the average daily traffic has DECREASED in the city since the year 2005 (with no comparison to 1996, nor source cited for any 2005 base-year figure). [p. 4.14-1] 9. The EIR references and relies upon public transportation (OCTA), although press reports indicate that such public transportation ridership is down, and some routes discontinued or re-routed. [p. 4.14-5] 10. ''This analysis did NOT identify any effects found NOT to be significant for transportation/traffic resulting from implementation of the General Plan Update." (Emphasis supplied, and which statement I find unintelligible with the double negative. I read it to say, "This analysis DID identify effects found to be significant for transportation/traffic resulting from implementation of the General Plan Update.") [p. 4.14-9] Most troubling to me is the fact that, with all of the projections cited above, along with others, the EIR concludes, regarding Transportation and Traffic: "IMPLEMENTATION OF THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE WOULD NOT RESULT IN ADVERSE IMPACTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT REGARDING TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC; THUS, THERE ARE NO SIGNIFICANT OR UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS." [p. 4.14-23] Common sense, logic, personal observations, and bad past Huntington Beach experiences suggest to me that there !'!f.!J. be a very significant adverse impact on transportation and traffic from the projected uses described in the General Plan Update that are NOT mitigated by this Report, and thus, I would hope you would ask for much more clarification on traffic in an upcoming Study Session. Thank you. Gino J. Bruno Huntington Beach Item 8. -421 HB -636-HB -460-Item 10. - 138 MECHANICAL MACHINING COMP ANY ==================Precision Machined Parts 15522 COMPUTER LANE, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92649 . (714) 898-4459-n-FAX (714) 898-6542 www.fastmfg.com ==u-jim@fastmfg.com 7-25-2017 RE: City of HB, General plan update. My opinion of the.new designation RT for industrial land is a good plan/ I forsee no problem with its, implementation. If· a complaint is raised I would listen, and consider it. I think you should consider adding all industrial land in HB to the plan. From Ja.'Tles Fast, owner of. property and business at above address, and within the di ht the proposed area/ . Signe~ ~~· HB -637- RECEIVED JUL 2 '7 2011 Depl. o! cornrnuniti Developrnen! Item 8. -422 HB -461-Item 10. - 139 July 26,2017 JUSTICE COMPANY 12140 WOODRUFF AVE., (562) 633-2553 DOWNEY, CA 90241 City of Huntington Beach Dept of Community Development Re; General Plan update notification Dear Sir: I have received this notice in the mail. I have no problem with this action. However, I have tried several times to change my mailing address without success. I still own property in the City of Huntington Beach, and the address changes with the utilities was simple. Would you pleas~change my mailing address in your records ti;>: Ralph Justice General Contractors 12140 Woodruff Ave Downey, Ca 90241 Thank you, Cdcu~~'"""-- e,partner .. 562 633 2553 Ite1n 8. -423 HB -638- RECEIVED JUL 31 2017 Dept o! Communify Development HB -462-Item 10. - 140 Planning Division 714/536-5271 July 14,2017 City of Huntington Beach 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Code Enforcement Division 714/375-5155 Buildi11g Division 714/536-5241 SUBJECT: City of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Notice Dear Prope1ty Owner, The City of Huntington Beach is cunently updating the Citywide General Plan, which is a long term policy document that, in part, is used in deciding how land is used and developed in the City. As part of the General Plan Update, the City is proposing to establish a new Research and Technology land use designation along the Gothard Street c01Tidor and within parts of northwest Huntington Beach on land that is currently designated Industrial. The new Research and Technology (RT) designation is proposed to be similar to the current Industrial land use and zorring designation in that it would continue to allow general industrial uses (such as, but not limited to, manufacturing, warehouse, and wholesale) while expanding the types of uses allowed and providing for more flexible use of space in an effort to retain existing businesses as well as attract new businesses to the area. Should the RT area be approved by the Planrring Commission and City Council, there will be additional public outreach and subsequent public hearings (in 2018) to consider the specifics of the RT zoning. As an owner of prope1ty within the proposed RT area, this means that businesses that you cunently own, operate or lease space to can continue to operate and that there will be more opportunity for business growth in the future. A map of the proposed Research and Technology area is provided on the back of this letter. If you would like more information or have questions on the proposed RT area or the General Plan Update, please contact me directly at 714-374-1661 or via email at jvillasenor@surfcity- hb.org. The General Plan Update is scheduled to be considered by the Planning Commission at a public hearing on August 15, 2017, at 7:00 P.M. in City Council Chambers. The Planning Commission public hearing is to make a reconnuendation to the City Council. The City Council is tentatively scheduled to hold a public hearing on the General Plan Update on September 18, 2017. Sincerely, 4onir%i~ Planrring Manager HB -639-Iten1 8. -424 HB -463-Item 10. - 141 EDMOND M. CONNOR MATTHEW J. FLETCHER DOUGLAS A. HEDENKAMP c ~ F It " . RECEIVED AUG 04 2017 . MICHAEL SAPIRA JAMES M. NAH DAVID R. RUTAN CONNOR, FLETCHER & HEDENKAMP LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW Depl of Community Developmenl August 3, 2017 VIA E-MAIL AND OVERNIGHT DELIVERY Ms. Jennifer Villasenor Planning Manager City of Huntington Beach Community Development Department 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 JVillasenor@surfcity-hb.org Re: OVSD's Comments on City's General Plan Update Dear Ms. Villasenor: On July 7, 2017, our office provided you with a letter on behalf of the Ocean View School District ("OVSD"), setting forth OVSD's comments on the Draft EIR for the General Plan Update that is currently being processed by the City of Huntington Beach (the "City"). As stated in the California General Plan Guidelines, a General Plan is more than the legal underpinning for land use decisions. Indeed, it should envision how the community will grow, and should reflect community priorities and values in shaping the future. OVSD supports the "Community Vision" set forth in the General Plan Update in that it states that Huntington Beach is a desirable destination for all people to live, work, play, and visit; is a healthy and safe, family-oriented community with flourishing schools and accessible community services for all ages; and has development guided to ensure responsible growth. With that perspective in mind, OVSD respectfully submits the following comments to provide additional information for the City to consider in formulating goals, policies, and implementation measures that will affect OVSD's schools. A. School Sites and Facilities The General Plan Update proposes significant changes from the current General Plan with respect to policies pertaining to property owned by school districts. The current policies are designed to promote a cooperative relationship between the City and school districts, especially with respect to surplus school site reuse and closure. However, that does not appear to be the case with the General Plan Update. Specifically, OVSD is concerned that the General Plan Update seeks to introduce new policies that exceed the City's authority because the Update Item 8. -425 2211 MICHELSON DRIVE, SUITE 1100 IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92612 T: 949.622.2600 E-MAIL: fil;Q----="· ··'-3Sslit.com HB -640-HB -464-Item 10. - 142 Ms. Jennifer Villasenor August3,2017 Page2 suggests that the City is allowed to (a) exercise control over surplus school sites and facilities and (b) limit OVSD's ability to dispose of its surplus properties in accordance with state law. We have prepared Table 1 below to summarize the specific goals, policies, and implementation measures set forth in the General Plan Update that seek to change the City's position on how school facilities are used and/or reused in the future: LU-6 Goal LU-6A LU-6 B LU-6C LU-P.22 PSl-5.A PS1·5.C PSl·P.7 Neighborhood school facilities adapt over time lo meet the changing education, recreation, and commercial needs of the communit . Consider preferred alternatives that maximize public benefit and access to recreation and o en s ace for future use of school facilities should a closure occur. Continue to consult with school districts during planning and environmental review of ro osed non-education school reuse ro'ects. Consider flexible interim use options to maximize existing use of school spaces while accommodatin future communi and school needs. School Buflding Reuse • To the extent possible emphasize alternative uses that serve public benefit, including other education facilities, community centers, recreation facilities, and open space, although all uses should be considered. • Work to renovate and expand existing school buildings to accommodate new proposed uses, rather than construction of new buildings. • Alternative uses of school property should enable the building to be converted back to school uses at a future date if needed. Continue to consult with school districts to maximize existing use of school spaces while accommodatin future communit and school needs. Ensure continued use of school facilities for public recreation activities and the use of city parks to su ort school education ur oses Public Library Facility Plan Evaluate local school libraries servin as Cit As shown in Table 1 above, the General Plan Update proposes to amend the Land Use Element to include Goal LU-6, Policies LU-6 A through C, and Implementation Measure LU- P.22 to provide that (a) surplus school sites should be limited to other educational facilities, community centers, recreation facilities, and open space; (b) instead of new construction, existing school buildings should be renovated to accommodate new uses and (c) school buildings should be preserved for reuse as schools in the future if needed. The current members of OVSD's school board share the City's desire to retain the playgrounds and recreational facilities currently located on OVSD's school sites in the event that OVSD were ever to decide to close a surplus school site and make it available for sale or lease. However, these same members are mindful of the fact that OVSD and the City are subject to state statutes and regulations that govern the reuse of surplus school sites. As such, it is incumbent on the City to ensure that the General Plan Update is consistent with state law in this regard. HB -641-Ite1n 8. -426 HB -465-Item 10. - 143 Ms. Jennifer Villasenor August 3, 2017 Page 3 As demonstrated by Table 2 below, the Huntington Beach Parks and Recreation Master Plan has designated seven (7) OVSD schools sites, consisting of a total of 16.98 acres, as potential parks for the City to purchase if any of the sites were ever deemed to be surplus school sites that would have to go through the Naylor Act process: UN)~ Circle View Park 2.31 Glen View Park 3.02 Haven View Park 2.95 Lake View Park 2.16 Marine View Park 2.96 Pleasant View Park 2. 17 Robinwood Park 1.41 Total 16.98 Identifying sites and acreage would be the first step in preparing the way for the City to possibly purchase portions of these school sites for parks, if and when the sites were ever deemed surplus and put up for sale. However, in proposing to adopt Goal LU-6, Policies LU-6 A-C and Implementation Measure LU-P.22, the City is seeking to create land use restrictions that the City may later try to use to justify (a) limiting surplus school sites to only park or recreational uses in the future and (b) interfering with OVSD's right to sell its property. These policies would not be consistent with state law and would directly conflict with the authority OVSD has over its own property. Notably, any such restrictions would be preempted by state statutes and regulations that specify the procedures that school districts must follow with respect to surplus school closure and reuse. For example, in the past, cities had a first right to purchase, at fair market value and under certain conditions, school district land used for playgrounds and recreation. That has now changed to give the first right of purchase to charter schools. OVSD is compelled to follow state law concerning surplus school site procedures, if and when the situation ever occurs. In this regard, Section 65852.9 of the Government Code, which was enacted by the California Legislature in 2006, provides, in relevant part, that cities may not rezone surplus school sites to open-space, park, or recreational uses unless adjacent properties are so zoned or unless the school district in question agrees to such rezoning. In addition, section 65852.9 provides that, if certain conditions are met with respect to a given surplus school site, a school district may request that the site be zoned to be "consistent with the provisions of the applicable general and specific plans and compatible with the uses of the property surrounding the school site." In order to comply with the legislative intent embodied in section 65852.9, the General Plan Update needs to be revised. To this end, OVSD proposes that the goals, policies, and implementation measures listed in Table 1 above be revised to read as follows: Item 8. -427 HB -642-HB -466-Item 10. - 144 Ms. Jennifer Villasenor August 3, 2017 Page4 LU-6 Goal LU-6A LU-6 B LU·6C LU-P.22 PSl-5.A PS1-5.C PSl·P.7 Neighborhood school sites adapt over time to meet the changing needs of the communit . Consistent with state law, explore alternatives with school districts for public benefit and access to recreation and open space as well as other uses for surplus school sites should a closure occur. Continue to consult with school districts in connection with any City-related or school district-related planning and environmental review of proposed non-education surplus school-site-ro'ects. In consultation with school districts, and consistent with state law, encourage flexible interim use options to maximize existing use of school sites while addressing future communit needs. School Building Reuse: Consistent with state law, explore alternative uses with school districts that serve public benefit, including other education facilities, community centers, recreation facilities, and o en s ace, althou h all uses should be considered. Continue to consult with school districts to maximize existing use of school sites while addressin future communit and school district needs. Continue to work with school districts for shared use of school district park spaces for public recreational activities and the use of city parks to support school education ur oses. Public Librarv Facility Plan Explore with local school districts the use of school libraries serving as city library satellites. In addition to making the changes reflected in Table 3 above, the land use designations for four school sites need to be changed to make them consistent with the land use designations for the properties surrounding those sites. Figure LU-2, "Land Use Plan," in the General Plan Update indicates that all OVSD school sites are designated as "Low Density Residential." However, properties adjacent to the Park View, Oak View, Sun View, and Harbour View elementary schools are designated as "Medium Density Residential." Accordingly, Figure LU-2 should be revised to redesignate those four schools as "Medium Density Residential." In addition to the above, OVSD is also concerned that Implementation Measure PSl-P.7 calls for the City to evaluate the use of existing school libraries for City library satellites. OVSD has never been consulted about the use of school libraries for city library use and there are a myriad of concerns that OVSD would have about such a program. Accordingly, OVSD requests that PSl-P.7 be changed to read as follows: Public Librarv Facility Plan Explore with local school districts the use of school libraries serving as city library satellites HB -643-Item 8. -428 HB -467-Item 10. - 145 Ms. Jennifer Villasenor August 3, 2017 Page 5 B. Intensification of Commercial and Industrial Land Use The General Plan Update proposes to add over 13,000,000 square feet of non- residential development. A majority of this consists or industrial development in the Northwest Industrial and Gothard Subareas. OVSD has suffered in the past from the City's failure to exercise its land use authority to address the incompatibility issues that obviously exist between industrial and sensitive land uses in the Gothard Industrial Corridor Subarea. The General Plan Update provides a perfect opportunity for the City to meaningfully address these issues and incorporate policies to reduce such land use conflicts. In our July 7th letter regarding the Draft EIR, OVSD proposed a number of mitigation measures and asked the City to include additional policies and implementation measures in the General Plan Update in order to lessen the environmental impacts associated with the development contemplated by the Update. For example, OVSD has requested that the General Plan Update be revised to include development standards that limit Floor Area Ratio, increase building setbacks, increase landscape buffers, and confine noise and odor-generating operations to fully enclosed buildings near sensitive land uses, such as public schools. There are well-documented land use compatibility issues involving industrial uses and sensitive land uses. These issues will only be exacerbated with intensification of industrial land uses associated with the General Plan Update unless land use controls and development standards are included. OVSD respectfully requests that the City incorporate the following land use controls and development standards in the General Plan Update to address the land use compatibility issues that are of great concern to OVSD: 1. Prohibit uses that potentially generate diesel emissions, TAC emitters, dust and odors generators within 1,000 feet of existing sensitive uses. 2. Require increased building setbacks (currently zero to 10 feet), as well as increased landscape requirements (currently 8%) for industrial and commercial uses in the Gothard Subarea. 3. Require conditional use permits (that would include air quality analyses and noise studies to be performed) for all industrial and commercial uses in the Gothard Subarea and Northwest Industrial Subarea within 1,000 feet of existing sensitive uses. 4. Require uses in the new Research and Technology classification to be "green and clean," instead of only "encouraging such conditions" as stated in Goal LU-5.B. 5. Require project applicants to submit land use plans that include heightened consideration of policies and strategies to minimize exposure of sensitive receptors and sites (e.g., schools, hospitals, and residences) to health risks related to air pollution. 6. Require development to be scaled to complement adjoining uses with respect to building setbacks, building height, and landscape screening. Item 8. -429 HB -644-HB -468-Item 10. - 146 Ms. Jennifer Villasenor August3,2017 Page6 7. Actively enforce the City's Noise Ordinance both stationary noise and roadway noise to lessen the ambient community noise levels. 8. Require the lower standard to be used when adjacent land uses have different noise standards to ensure that the noise levels at the property line are not exceeded for sensitive land uses. C. Environmental Justice The General Plan Update does not adequately address the subject of environmental justice, i.e., the fair treatment of people of all races, cultures, and incomes with respect to the development, adoption, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. A healthy environment should be available to everyone, and the burdens of pollution should not be focused on sensitive populations or on communities that already are experiencing the adverse effects of pollution. The General Plan Update needs to be revised to set forth goals, policies and implementation measures to provide equal treatment concerning the pollution burden generated by land use and access to public benefits, such as parks and sidewalks. Figure ERC-2 in the General Plan Update indicates a lack of neighborhood parks near the Oak View neighborhood, but there are no goals or policies provided to increase the number of parks in this area, which has the highest density population in the City and has been identified by Cal EPA as a community that has serious environmental justice issues confronting it. The General Plan Update is proposing to intensify industrial uses adjacent to the Oak View community. As such, the Update should evaluate this in light of the environmental burden that already exists for this community and the Oak View Elementary School and Preschool that serve the community. Chapter 8 -Public Participation of the California General Plan Guidelines, provides that public participation is an important part of environmental justice in order to have planners, decision-makers and the community engage in meaningful dialogue about future development. The City needs to provide the Oak View neighborhood with the opportunity to participate in the General Plan Update process by providing alternative communication services, such as translators and public notices in Spanish about the General Plan Update. OVSD is quite concerned that the Oak View community cannot engage in meaningful dialogue with the City regarding the intensification of industrial uses and its impact to the community if there has been no targeted outreach to the Oak View residents. D. Proposed Additional Goals. Policies. and Implementation Measures OVSD's July 7th comment letter on the Draft EIR included several requests for the City to include additional policies and implementation measures in the General Plan Update to ensure that the assumptions made will be implemented by the development associated with and facilitated by the General Plan Update. OVSD requests that the following policies and implementation measures be added to the General Plan Update to ensure development assumptions will, in fact, be achieved; HB -645-lten1 8. -430 HB -469-Item 10. - 147 Ms. Jennifer Villasenor August3, 2017 Page 7 • The Project Description in the Draft EIR states the project consists of 7,228 residential units and 5,384,920 square feet of non-residential development, but the Transportation/Traffic section states there is 8,589 multifamily units and 13,099,000 square feet of non-residential. A land use cap on the type and amount residential units and non-residential square footage needs to be incorporated into the General Plan Update. • The General Plan Update needs to clarify the location of the assumed 7 ,228 residential units. The Draft EIR it anticipates that more units would be added to the Beach/Edinger Corridor Specific Plan, but does not provide a number. The Project Description should include a description of the amount of units that will be added above the current cap of 2, 100 in order for OVSD to plan for the anticipated school children that will be generated by the General Plan Update. • Staff has stated that the majority of the anticipated residential development will occur in the Downtown area and the Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan area. However, there are no policies or implementation measures to limit where residential development will occur. The General Plan Update should either indicate where the assumed residential development could occur or incorporate policies that align with the project assumptions. Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the General Plan Update. If you have any questions or need any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me or the below- listed representatives of OVSD. cc: Gina Clayton-Tarvin, President, OVSD Board of Trustees Carol Hansen, Superintendent, OVSD Michael Conroy, Asst. Superintendent, OVSD Susan Whittaker, Whittaker Planning Services Item 8. -431 HB -646-HB -470-Item 10. - 148 THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS ARE ALSO INCLUDED IN THE FINAL EIR AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS HB -647-Item 8. -432 HB -471-Item 10. - 149 From: To: Subject: Date: Ted Ross Villasenor Jennifer EIR Comments Wednesday, June 07, 2017 2:49:43 PM Sorry but there wasn't an indication that the web page for collecting comments was working properly??? tedross 0077@msn.com Comments to Draft EIR: 1) Several references are made as to source data provided by Michael Baker International,. but no qualifying explanation is provided. Since this must be some sort of private consulting firm what are their qualifications to provide such data. Why haven't appropriate Government agencies specifically chartered to provide source data been used as references? Furthermore, what pedigree does Michael Baker International, have in using their data in the past as compared to actual achieved results? 2) Paragraph 2.6.1: " .............. lower level of growth that is reasonably forecast based on the Huntington Beach Traffic Model, which was updated for the 2013 Circulation Element Update, and accounting for existing conditions within the city of Huntington Beach and the goals and policies of the existing General Plan (1996)" . Comment: Since it is quite obvious to those who travel Huntington Beach Streets this statement needs lots of work; starting with a new Huntington Beach Traffic Model that takes in to account the obvious impact of the new high density housing traffic increases that seem to have caught everyone off guard!. 3) Transportation/Traffic: "General Plan Update Goal CIRC-1: The circulation system supports existing, approved, and planned land uses while maintaining a desired level of service and capacity on streets and at critical intersections.". Comment: It isn't happening now so what makes you think it will be alright in the future? You can't keep up with the needs for infrastructure maintenance with robbing peter to pay Paul so how will this be accomplished in the future. Fiscal trends for both city and State would seem to argue for the contrary. What new resources will be made available that don't exist now? 4) "ERC-15.C: Evaluate participation in Orange County Water District's recycled water program, and explore opportunities for the city to produce its own recycled water for use within the community." Comment: This is very important; very effort should be made to fully participate in Orange County Water District's recycled water program to the maximum extent possible. 5) "ERC-13.F: Support Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) feasibility studies" Comment: Ite111 8. -433 Seriously object to this statement, neither the City Council nor the residents/electorate has authorized such an effort. The City has no role to play in providing and ensuring public utilities. This is presumptuous and needs to be stricken from the EIR and considerations in HB -648-HB -472-Item 10. - 150 the General Plan Update unless the Electorate has authorized this new concept for Public Utilities. Ted Ross 8111 Falmouth Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Sent from Mail for Windows 10 I-IB -649-Item 8. -434 HB -473-Item 10. - 151 From: Ted Ross Villasenor Jennifer To: Subject: RE: Draft GP & EIR Comments Monday, June 12, 2017 4:15:41 PM Date: Jennifer, In this email I'll try to recall my comments made at the last meeting you hosted and were provided verbally at first; then I'll be going back to complete my review now that I understand the organization of the documents to be reviewed better. Volume 1 Draft General Plan: 1. Page 1-2 "Key Facts" inserted data. Comment on the source; "4) Stanley R. Hoffman Associates" was included without qualifications to provide such data. You would be far better served by using know qualified sources for reference data such as State and Federal entities that specialize in providing such data. 2. Page 1-4 Paragraph on "Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy" & sentence: "The RTP was adopted in 2017 and is 3. updated every four years to address regional transportation needs. The General Plan must be consistent with these regional plam1ing efforts." Comment: Since Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is not an elected entity perhaps you need to state how the RTP is actually authorized and how The Huntington Beach General Plan must be consistent with it? I do not believe the electorate has ever been asked to concur with this arrangement? 4. Page 2-24. "Table LU-1 General Plan Distribution of Land Uses". Comment: Data source is unreferenced and should be added for clarity. 5. Page 2-25. "Table LU-2 General Plan Development Capacity". Comment: Data source is unreferenced and should be added for clarity. 6. Page 3-19. "Figure CIRC-4" Comment: How is the data shown in Figure CIRC-4 subject to change by OCTA updated? Perhaps this should be time dependent in some reference so updates can be easily made to reflect the latest OCTA plans & implementation of Bus routes? 7. Page 4-15. "Figure CIRC-4". Comment: Data source is unreferenced and should be added for clarity. 8. Page 4-22. "Table ERC-6 Current and Forecasted Energy Use". Comment: For the data set 2005 & 2012 Data source is unreferenced and should be added for clarity. 9. Page 4-38. "Paragraph dealing with "Goal ERC-13. Increase both distributed generation and utility renewable energy sources within municipal and community-wide practices. Sub-item F) "Support Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) feasibility studies." Comment: Seriously object to this statement, neither the City Council nor the residents/electorate has authorized such an effort. The City has no role to play in providing and ensuring public utilities. This is presumptuous and needs to be stricken from the EIR and considerations in the General Plan Update unless the Electorate has authorized this new concept for Public Utilities. As stated in the GP it appears that City staff has assumed that this is a suitable objective and that it should be favored. This just isn't the case and places the City in a potential high risk position for assuming utilities rate control and providing for common consumption in times of economic peril! 10. Page 8-6. "LU-P.10. Affordable Housing Ensure that Huntington Beach has a sufficient supply of housing for individuals and families of all incomes, including extremely low- and very low-income residents. Meet or exceed the target number of affordable units specified in the city's Regional Housing Needs Allocation." Comment: I thought this was settled by Mike Gates, City Attorney, that the City of Huntington Beach is not Item 8. -435 HB -650-HB -474-Item 10. - 152 subject to the implied reference to the Kennedy Commission; "target number of affordable units specified in the city's Regional Housing Needs Allocation. 11. Page 8-32. "ERC-P.13. Community Choice Aggregation". Comment: Seriously object to this statement, neither the City Council nor the residents/electorate has authorized such an effort. The City has no role to play in providing and ensuring public utilities. This is presumptuous and needs to be stricken from the EIR and considerations in the General Plan Update unless the Electorate has authorized this new concept for Public Utilities. As stated in the GP it appears that City staff has assumed that this is a suitable objective and that it should be favored. This just isn't the case and places the City in a potential high risk position for assuming utilities rate control and providing for common consumption in times of economic peril! (repeat!). Comments to Draft EIR Volume 2: (Continued from prior email dated 6/7/2017) 1. Page 2-34. "MM4.10-5 Prior to issuance of construction permits, applicants for new development projects within 500 feet of noise-sensitive receptors will implement the following best management practices to reduce construction noise levels". Comment: This is the item I spoke to during the last public review where I pointed the potential damage to infrastructure roads from construction noise generated by hauling trucks inducing long -term cumulative structural fatigue to roadways by low frequency sound caused by trucks during the hauling process. This can be mitigated by in part the use of specifications requiring trucks be equipped with Air -ride suspension systems. 2. Where items flagged in my General Plan comments have corresponding items within the EIR Volume 2 these comment have direct applicability to those items also. Ted Ross 8111 Falmouth Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: Villasenor Jennifer Sent: Monday, June 12, 2017 11:26 AM To: Ted Ross Subject: Re: EIR Comments Hi Ted, HB -651-Item 8. -436 HB -475-Item 10. - 153 Thank you for your comments on the EIR. They will be responded to in writing in the final EIR. Also, we had the website fixed. However, if you have further comments, please send them directly to me. Thank you. Jennifer Sent from my iPad On Jun 7, 2017, at 2:49 PM, Ted Ross <tedross 0077@msn.com> wrote: Item 8. -437 Sorry but there wasn't an indication that the web page for collecting comments was working properly??? tedross 0077@msn com Comments to Draft EIR: 1) Several references are made as to source data provided by Michael Baker International,. but no qualifying explanation is provided. Since this must be some sort of private consulting firm what are their qualifications to provide such data. Why haven't appropriate Government agencies specifically chartered to provide source data been used as references? Furthermore, what pedigree does Michael Baker International, have in using their data in the past as compared to actual achieved results? 2) Paragraph 2.6.1: " .............. lower level of growth that is reasonably forecast based on the Huntington Beach Traffic Model, which was updated for the 2013 Circulation Element Update, and accounting for existing conditions within the city of Huntington Beach and the goals and policies of the existing General Plan (1996)" . Comment: Since it is quite obvious to those who travel Huntington Beach Streets this statement needs lots of work; starting with a new Huntington Beach Traffic Model that takes in to account the obvious impact of the new high density housing traffic increases that seem to have caught everyone off guard!. 3) Transportation/Traffic: "General Plan Update Goal CIRC-1: The circulation system supports existing, approved, HB -652-HB -476-Item 10. - 154 and planned land uses while maintaining a desired level of service and capacity on streets and at critical intersections.". Comment: It isn't happening now so what makes you think it will be alright in the future? You can't keep up with the needs for infrastructure maintenance with robbing peter to pay Paul so how will this be accomplished in the future. Fiscal trends for both city and State would seem to argue for the contrary. What new resources will be made available that don't exist now? 4) "ERC-15.C: Evaluate participation in Orange County Water District's recycled water program, and explore opportunities for the city to produce its own recycled water for use within the community." Comment: This is very important; very effort should be made to fully participate in Orange County Water District's recycled water program to the maximum extent possible. 5) "ERC-13.F: Support Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) feasibility studies" Comment: Seriously object to this statement, neither the City Council nor the residents/electorate has authorized such an effort. The City has no role to play in providing and ensuring public utilities. This is presumptuous and needs to be stricken from the EIR and considerations in the General Plan Update unless the Electorate has authorized this new concept for Public Utilities. Ted Ross 8111 Falmouth Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Sent from Mail for Windows 10 HB -653-Item 8. -438 HB -477-Item 10. - 155 From: Gino J. Bruno To: Villasenor Jennifer Cc: Hess Scott; Wilson Fred Subject: Comments to General Plan Update EIR Monday, June 121 2017 11:09:11 AM Date: Ms. Villasenor, regarding the EIR ancillary to the General Plan Update (GPU), and particularly Section 4.14 ("Transportation/Traffic"): As I understand it, the city's current General Plan was last comprehensively updated in 1996. [Agenda for the Planning Commission meeting of June 13, 2017] At page 4.14-5, the EIR describes the "Performance Criteria" that was used, and how the Average Daily Traffic [ADT] volumes date back to the 1996 General Plan. At page 4.14-1, the EIR states: "The existing ADT volumes are from a comprehensive count program conducted in the spring of 2014, and supplemented by traffic counts conducted in 2012, 2013, and 2016. A comparison of observed planning area-wide traffic count data was performed for the years 2005 and 2014. The results indicate that, on average, daily vehicle trip levels throughout the planning area decreased by approximately one percent in that time period." And so, 2005 was compared with 2014, and a conclusion was reached that there was a decrease in average daily traffic. Questions: 1. Why was the year 2005 used in this comparison, rather than the year 1996 when the General Plan was last updated? 2. Where in the EIR (if at all) is the actual "comparison of observed planning area-wide traffic count data [that] was performed for the years 2005 and 2014" so that one may verify that the comparison was indeed between "apples and apples"? Section 4.14.3.2 reads in full: "This analysis did NOT identify any effects found NOT to be significant for transportation/traffic resulting from implementation of the General Plan Update." [Emphasis supplied] With the double negatives, I read this as saying, "This analysis DID identify effects found to be significant .... " Question: If the analysis DID identify effects found to be significant, does the EIR reflect how those "significant" effects would be mitigated (in addition to the reconfiguration of the three intersections of Gothard & Center, Brookhurst & Adams, and Beach & Heil)? If so, please indicate where. Thank you Ite1n 8. -439 HB -654-HB -478-Item 10. - 156 Gino J. Bruno Huntington Beach HB -655-Item 8. -440 HB -479-Item 10. - 157 Serving: Anaheim Brea Buena Park Cypress Fountain Valley Fullerton Garden Grove Huntington Beach Irvine La Habra La Palma Los Alamitos Newport Beach Orange Placentia Santa Ana Seal Beach Stanton Tustin Villa Parl< County of Orange Costa Mesa Sanitary District Midway City Sanitary District Irvine Ranch W<~ter District Yorba Linda Water District Ite1n 8. -441 f<ECEIVED Orange County Sanitation .iQisiricl 1 June 13, 2017 Jennifer Villasenor Planning Manager, City of Huntington Beach Community Development Department 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 10844 Ellis Avenue, Fountain Valley, CA 92708 714. 962. 241 :l)r.pL10\.i;QflWMJ~!l!bliwelopmen SUBJECT: Draft EIR for the City of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Orange County Sanitation District (Sanitation District) has reviewed your Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) for the Huntington Beach General Plan Update. The Sanitation District is requesting that the City of Huntington Beach model the Regional Collection System while modelling for the local sewer impacts as physical developments are planned. Please use the following flow factors to estimate current and future flows for projects: • 727 gpd/acre for estate density residential (0-3 d.u. /acre) • 1488 gpd/acre for low density residential (4-7d.u. /acre) • 3451 gpd/acre for medium density residential (8-16 d.u./acre) • 5474 gpd/acre for medium-high density residential (17-25 d.u./acre) • 7516 gpd/acre for high density residential (26-35 d.u./acre) • 2262 gpd/acre for commercial/office • 3167 gpd/acre for industrial • 2715 gpd/acre for institutional • 5429 gpd/acre for high intensity industrial/commercial o 150 gpd/room for hotels and motels Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the proposed General Plan Update through 2040. If you have questions, or for more information, please contact me at (714) 593-7331. ~~Yi:n&~ Principal Financial Analyst Planning Division AC:sa http://projecl/sites/Planning/CEQA/Externally Generated/2017 Comment Letters/20170609 City of Huntington Beach Draft EIR-General Plan Update.docx Our Mission: To protect public health and the environment by providing effective wastewater collection, treatment 1 and recycling. HB -656-HB -480-Item 10. - 158 Public Works Integrity, Accountability, Service, Trust Shane L. Silsby, Director June 14, 2017 Jennifer Villasenor, Planning Manager City of Huntington Beach Community Development Department 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 NCL-2015-025 Subject: Notice of Availability of a Draft Program EIR for the Huntington Beach General Plan Update Dear Ms. Villasenor: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Notice of Availability of a Draft Program EIR for the Huntington Beach General Plan Update. The County of Orange Flood Program Support/Hydrology Section reviewed the document and offers the following comments for your consideration: 1. It is the goal of the Orange County Flood Control District (OCFCD) to provide I 00- year flood protection. To provide for this goal, OCFCD attempts to design facilities to convey I 00-year flows where feasible. Many of OCFCD's facilities are a mixture of segments built at different times. Improvements of deficient OCFCD facilities are programmed through the OCFCD's Seven-Year Flood Control Projects Plan. OCFCD's Seven-Year Flood Control Projects Plan is reviewed annually and revised based upon Countywide prioritization; it is possible that the design and construction of channel improvements might be postponed or delayed and not constructed for many years. Hence, mitigation of any adverse impacts resulting from the project should not rely solely on a potential OCFCD improvement project. 2. The Project Area is tributary to the Orange County Flood Control District's (OCFCD) facilities. A map/exhibit should identify and indicate these regional flood control facilities that will likely be impacted by the proposed project. Drainage Facility Base maps that depict existing local and regional drainage facilities owned by the Orange County Flood Control District (OCFCD) are available for review at http://www.ocflood.com/docs/drawings 3. All work within or adjacent to any OCFCD right-of-way for flood control facilities should be conducted so as not to adversely impact channel's structural integrity, hydraulic flow conditions, access and maintainability. Furthermore, all work within 300 N. Flower Street, Santa Ana, CA 92703 P.O. Box 4048, Santa Ana, CA 92702-4048 www.ocpublicworks.com 714.667.8800 I lnfo@OCPW.ocgov.com HB -657-Item 8. -442 HB -481-Item 10. - 159 OCFCD's right-of-way should be conducted only after an encroachment pennit for the proposed work has been obtained from the County. For information regarding the pennit application process and other details please refer to the Encroachment Pennits Section link on OC Public Works' website ht!Jl ://www.ocpublicworks.com/ds/pem1its/encroachment penni ts Technical reviews and approvals for the proposed work will be accomplished within the pem1it process. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact Sahar Parsi at (714) 647-3988 or Robert McLean at (714) 647-3951 in Flood Programs, or Linda Smith at (714) 667-8848 in Development Services. Sincerely, . Laree Alonso, Manager, Planning Division OC Public Works Service Area/OC Development Services 300 North Flower Street Santa Ana, California 92702-4048 Laree.alonso@ocpw.ocgov.com cc: Sahar Parsi, OC Flood Programs Robert McLean, OC Flood Programs 300 N. Flower Street, Santa Ana, CA 92703 P.O. Box 4048, Santa Ana, CA 92702-4048 Item 8. -443 I-IB -65 8- www.ocpublicworks.com 714.667.8800 I lnfo@OCPW.ocgov.com HB -482-Item 10. - 160 From: To: Subject: Date: Mike Ferguson Villasenor Jennifer Comment on the GPU and EIR updates: Delaware Street residential traffic impact Thursday, June 22, 2017 6:45:55 AM Per http://wwvv.huntingtonbeachca.gov/government/departmentslplanning/major/general-plan- update.cfm, this will comment on the GPU and EIR updates. I live on Delaware Street between Memphis and Indianapolis. I have long suffered reduced quality-of-life and property value due to increased traffic supporting increased downtown business activity and residential density. I have long argued against this uncompensated taking, i.e., absent judicial review through condemnation proceedings. This argument has lately assumed the form of criticizing a Bicycle Corridor Improvement Program (BCIP) funding proposal, which I apprehend is a thinly veiled civic enterprise design that would further abuse Delaware Street residents and property owners by an uncompensated taking. That is, quality-of-life and residential property value on Delaware Street would be further sacrificed and degraded for the benefit of downtown business interests, if not civic enterprise, absent just compensation. While I would favor re-directing noisy Delaware through-traffic to commercial arterial streets, e.g., Beach Boulevard, I doubt that promoting Delaware as a bicycle boulevard will achieve that end. I suspect it more likely that funding is sought to perfect the City's claim to a wider street width, ostensibly to pave sidewalks, e.g., using a cynical, alannist interpretation of the ADA. This I apprehend as little more than a ruse to eventually re-purpose Delaware as a secondary arterial, its fonner designation in the MP AH, despite the absence of traffic noise mitigation in the residential neighborhood. This seems to me planning absent constitutionally required consideration for residents, confirming my view that this design is an unlawful taking. I am pleased that OCTA no longer routes large, noisy, underutilized buses past my Delaware residence. But I suspect that change resulted more from the Orange County bankruptcy than residents' complaints. Either way, that change made residential use more tolerable. I have not examined plan updates in detail, because I suppose that economic development is preferable to decline. I also suspect it inevitable that economic pressure will ultimately prevail, and Delaware residential property value will continue to be sacrificed to downtown trade. But I did note that it appears Delaware has been downgraded from secondary aiterial to collector, a welcome change reflecting reality, since Delaware fails to meet requirements for use as a secondary arterial. If a bicycle con-idor would improve my residential property value, I might support that use if it involved no perfecting of a wider street width. The existing width seems adequate to stripe for bicycle lanes, and sidewalks will (eventually) be installed as a condition of new construction. A reso1t to condemnation would confirm my suspicion that Delaware is aggressively planned for through-traffic, that I consider an abuse of the residential zoning. In 1905, when the Vista del Mar subdivision was recorded, the platted width of Delaware Street was arguably designed to support a commercial thoroughfare. But my understanding is that the City has persistently directed development otherwise, failed to timely perfect a wider width, and Delaware property owners have arguably paid the price. Now, a century later, not only are Delaware property owners denied commercial use on a street with traffic that impairs residential value, their prope1ty value is expropriated to support downtown development by bearing a through-traffic burden absent corresponding benefit. I would argue that is an abuse HB -659-Item 8. -444 HB -483-Item 10. - 161 of the subdivision map, that allocated the street less for public use than more direct benefit to subdivision property owners, i.e., not to support downtown profiteering absent compensation. In the 1905 horse-and-buggy era, when sidewalk paving for pedestrian use was a higher priority than paving between curbs, I doubt that the subdivision map intended to invite the noise, nuisance, and hazard of modern motor vehicle through-traffic. Since I am unfamiliar with the plan details, I would value counter-argument to my impression that the plan might demonstrate. I have seen some signs of an ambivalent drift toward down- zoning Oldtown to more upscale residential use, e.g., McMansions. That residential value is impaired by through-traffic. As I note the coastal changes over some time, it seems undeniable that density has increased, density increases will continue, traffic must necessarily increase to support that increasing density, and Delaware Street residential value will remain under threat of sacrifice to support increased coastal development density. The best planning might manage is to balance economic development against preserving, if not promoting, the quality-of-life necessary to retain, if not attract, residents to support it. Item 8. -445 HB -660-HB -484-Item 10. - 162 CITY OF FOUNTAIN VALLEY PLANNING DEPARTMENT /0200 SL.,ITER _-11-ENl.'E · FOliXT..I/,\' 1'.-IL/./;'), C.-1 92708--!736 · (71./J 51)3--1-!~1 5. FA_r· (7/-IJ 593--1525 June 26, 2017 Jennifer Villasenor, Planning Manager City of Huntington Beach Community Development Department 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 SUBJECT: NOA of Draft Program EIR for Huntington Beach General Plan Update (EIR No. 14-00l)(State Claringhouse No. 2015101032) Dear Ms. Villasenor: 1RECEIVED JUN 28 2017 Dcpl. ol Communi~ Developmenl Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Huntington Beach General Plan Update. Our understanding is that the Draft Program EIR for the General Plan Update will identify and analyze the potential environmental impacts associated with a city initiated comprehensive update to the General Plan for an approximate 25-year planning horizon to 2040. Following our review of the Draft Program EIR for the Huntington Beach General Plan Update, we have the following comments/concerns: 1. The City of Fountain Valley is concerned with the impacts on Fountain Valley roadways throughout the City due to the addition of 105,000 daily trips. There is already considerable traffic generated from Huntington Beach that travels Fountain Valley streets to access the 1-405 and other cities and areas east of Fountain Valley. A comprehensive traffic analysis of all Fountain Valley arterials and intersections needs to be conducted to evaluate the potential impacts. In addition, evaluation of Garfield/Gisler bridge construction should be considered to address traffic impacts generated from the proposed project as well as to address existing traffic impacts due to a lack of a balanced, regional traffic network. 2. Truck traffic, especially on Talbert Avenue, needs to be evaluated to address impacts of additional truck traffic that will be generated by the proposed traffic as well as addressing existing impacts of truck traffic on Talbert Avenue and abutting land uses that originates in Huntington Beach accessing 1-405 in Fountain Valley. Once again, thank you for the opportunity to review the Draft Program EIR for the Huntington Beach General Plan Update. Should you have any questions about our comments, please don't hesitate to me at (714) 593-4431 or email at steven.ayers@fountainvalley.org. Si~c ely, I -{'7( Stevert Ayers Planner HB -661-Item 8. -446 HB -485-Item 10. - 163 Kathleen Treseder 61 Murasaki St, Irvine CA 92617 619-459-9493 treseder@stanfordalumni.org July 3, 2017 Ms. Villasenor City of Huntington Beach Conmrnnity Development Department 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 jvillasenor@surfcity-hb.org Dear Ms. Villasenor, I am Professor and Chair of the Department of Ecology and Evolutionmy Biology at UC Irvine. I have researched and taught climate chm1ge science for 22 years. I am writing to express my strongest possible support for the Huntington Beach General Plm1 item ERC- P.13: a feasibility study of a Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) plm1. If Huntington Beach adopts CCA, the corrmrnnity will likely choose sustainable energy like solar, wind, and geothermal power. Currently, CCA is cheaper than conventional energy plans. Moreover, free market competition m1d advm1ces in sustainable energy teclmology will probably cut CCA prices even further. Sustainable energy use will help Huntington Beach meet state-mandated reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to future climate change. Based on current rates of climate change, sea level rise will cause 2-foot floods in Huntington Beach by 2030 (see attaclm1ent). In fact, we predict this with 100% certainty. Within Huntington Beach, a fair amount of coastal land lies below 2 feet, and is at risk for flooding. Specifically, 130 people live in 67 homes with a total property value of $120 million. However, reductions in greenhouse gas emissions can slow the rate of sea level rise and protect this coastland. Altogether, CCA is a cost-effective way for Huntington Beach to avoid future property damage from sea level rise. I sh·ongly endorse this approach, m1d I appreciate that the city is considering it. Sincerely, Kathleen Treseder Item 8. -447 HB -662-HB -486-Item 10. - 164 COASTAL RISKS FOR HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA Selected water level: 2 feet May occur from sea level rise, coastal flooding, or both. What's at risk on land below 2 feet?'' •Population: 130 •Homes: 67 •Property value: $120 Million 2 feet in historical context •Highest observed area flood: 2.4 feet in 2005 • Statistical 1-in-100 year fiood height: 2.3 feet • Most recent flood over 2 feet observed in: not in record Unnatural Coastal Floods' About two-thirds of U.S. coastal fiood days since 1950 would not have met the National Weather Service's local definition of flooding without the few inches so far of human-caused, climate-driven sea level rise. Rising seas = more floods' • Huntington Beach, CA has already experienced about 3 inches of sea level rise over the last 90 years of records. Climate change is projected to drive much more rise this century. •This raises the starting point for storm surges and high tides, making coastal floods more severe and more frequent. When could a 2-foot flood happen? •Likelihood by 2030: 100%-100% •Likelihood by 2050: 100%-100% •Likelihood by 2100: 100%-100% 3,4,6 Land and population below 2 feet in Huntington Beach, CA Social vulnerability (e.g. from low income) compounds coastal risk. Land below 2 feet is colored according to the legend. Surging Seas uses high-accuracy lidar elevation data supplied by NOAA. Map reflects a uniform sea level and/or flood height. Individual storm surge, tidal or rainfall events cause more complex and uneven water surfaces. 1 Floods and sea level rise are relative to local high tide lines circa 1992 {mean higher high water across 1983-2001). 2 Values exclude sub-2-ft areas potentially protected by levees, natural ridges, and other features. 3 Climate Central estimates risk by combining local sea level rise projections with flood height risk statistics based on historic data. 4 Flood risk projections and history are based on records from the NOAA water level station at Los Angeles -Outer Harbor, 15 miles from Huntington Beach, from 1923 to 2013. 5 Strauss, B. H., Kopp, R. E., Sweet, W. V. and Bittermann, K., 2016. Unnatural Coastal Floods. Climate Central Research Report, 6 Sea level projections are localized, and local flood risks projected, based on methods from Tebaldi et al. 2012 {Environmental Research letters). Surging Seas Sea Level Rise Tools & Analysis by CLIMATE CENTRAL HB -663-Item 8. -448 For more methods. limitations. full citations. see source: riskfinder:org utdl1u1 '· Coastal Risks for Huntington Beach, CA. Climate Central. 712/ZOi 1 HB -487-Item 10. - 165 SEA LEVEL RISE AND COASTAL FLOODING FAQS What causes sea level to rise? • A warming ocean: Thermometer and satellite measurements show that the ocean has been warming for more than a century. Water expands as it warms, and the only way the ocean can go is up and out. • Shrinking ice: Warmer air and water temperatures are causing global glaciers and ice sheets on Greenland and Antarctica to melt or to break off into the ocean. Adding water or ice from land to the ocean raises sea level, and is by far the biggest future threat. • Sinking land: In some places, coastal land is sinking, due to a variety of slow, long-term processes not linked to current climate change, or due to pump extraction of water or fossil fuels from underground formations. What causes climate change? • The main activity causing climate change is the burning of fossil fuels, which emits heat-trapping pollution. • Leading scientific bodies agree: Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research concludes that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primarydriver.7 Can sea level rise be slowed? • Major cuts in heat-trapping pollution through measures such as a swift global transition to a clean energy economy, climate-friendly agriculture, and protecting forests would reduce future sea level rise. REDUCING YOUR RISK Preparing yourself and your community Does sea level rise affect flooding? • Sea level rise raises the starting point for waves, tides, and storm surge, making coastal floods more severe and more frequent. •A February 2016 Climate Central analysis found that about two-thirds of U.S. coastal flood days since 1950 would not have met the National Weather Service's local definition offlooding without the few inches so far of human-caused, climate-driven global sea level rise. What does the future hold? •Some future sea level rise is inevitable due to pollution already in the atmosphere, forcing some adaptation. •Rapid cuts in emissions of heat-trapping pollution would increase the chances of limiting global sea level rise to near 2 feet this century, but continuing unchecked pollution could lead to a rise of more than 6 feet.' •A 2-foot rise would mean widespread, dramatic increases in flooding, and submergence of the very lowest coastal places. A 6-foot rise would pose severe and in cases existential threats to major coastal cities worldwide. •Many places will be able to reduce sea level rise impacts by establishing defenses, accommodating floods, or relocating some development, at uncertain cost. • Pollution this century will lock in sea level rise for hundreds of years to come-likely far more than 6 feet on the current path. The final amount will depend on how rapidly the world community can reduce and then stop heat-trapping pollution. • Actions to curb heat-trapping pollution will reduce sea level rise, but some rise is unavoidable. •Learn more about the actions you can take yourself at sealevel.climatecentral.org/flood-preparation • Make sure leaders in your community know your area's risks by sharing this fact sheet and riskfinder.org •Surging Seas can help your community participate in FEMA's Community Rating System. Contact us to learn more. • Climate Central offers tailored mapping, projections and analysis to meet the specific needs of cities, counties, states and businesses, using scenarios and data you can choose: contact sealeve!®climatecentral.org to learn more. Resources available for California • Sea Grant California: https:l/caseagrant.ucsd.edu/ • California Coastal Commission: Sea Level Rise: http://www.coastal.ca.gov/climate/slr/ • State of California: Coastal Conservancy Climate Change Projects: http://scc.ca.gov/climate-change/ •For a longer list see: sealevel.climatecentral.org/responses/ptans Climate Central Climate Central is an independent nonprofit, nonadvocacy organization that researches climate impacts. Our web tools are based on peer-reviewed science and are included as resources on national portals such as NOAA's Digital Coast and the U.S. Climate Resilience Toolkit. Get more analysis at riskfinder.org 7 Statement on climate change from 31 scientific associations (2016), http://www.aaas.org/sites/defau!t/files/06282016.pdf {Accessed July 7, 2016). learn more at http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific·consensus/ ~ " ' ' ' ia level projections from Kopp et al. 2014 (Earth's Future) and more recent Antarctic research In DeConto and Item 8. _ 449 ture).Forfu!lcitationsandmethodsvisit:nskfinder.org HB _664 _ Surging Seas Sea Level Rise Tools & An<tlysls by CLIMATE C~NTRAL HB -488-Item 10. - 166 July 6'd, 2017 Jennifer Villasenor, Planning Manager City of Huntington Beach Community Development Department 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 jvillasenor@surfcity-hb.org Re: Public Comment on draft of City of Huntington Beach General Plan Update (GPU) Dear Ms. Vilasenor: I write to express my enthusiastic support of the Huntington Beach General Plan item ERC- P.13, which calls for a feasibility study of a Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) plan. Simply put, I prefer to choose my own energy providers. Currently, my only choice is to purchase energy from Southern California Edison, which charges the second-highest rates in California. Community Choice Aggregation is a better alternative, because it would foster free market competition leading to lower rates. In addition, CCAs can stimulate the development of high- tech energy suppliers within Huntington Beach, which would create local jobs and benefit our economy. Moreover, by offering multiple tiers of service with different levels of renewable energy, CCA would allow Huntington Beach to cheaply and sustainably meet its goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions without relying on industry or consumer regulations. The transition to renewable energy would also improve local air quality. Finally, if Huntington Beach embraces sustainable energy via CCA, it would reinforce our culture and identity as a "Surf City" that protects beaches by slowing sea level rise. Because HB Huddle is committed to individual freedoms, the well-being of Huntington Beach residents, and environmental protection, it follows that we are committed to CCA as well. Community Choice Aggregation will help Huntington Beach meet its vision of a healthy and safe city in which natural resources are protected (May 2017 draft, General Plan). For example, the General Plan envisions that in the near future, "local attractions, such as the beach ... draw tourists from near and far". In fact, tourism is listed as one of the top employment sectors in the city. Yet, sea level rise threatens most-if not all-of the city's beaches. CCA would help mitigate this threat by reducing greenhouse gas emissions and slowing climate change, which is the cause of sea level rise. In addition, the city's support of sustainable energy can be used in marketing campaigns to reinforce the "Surf City" image and draw additional tourists. The General Plan also envisions that by 2040, "the community has shifted to renewable energy resources and conservation practices. Support for local businesses to develop new technologies leads to the use of these technologies to support further conservation and sustainability." CCA is an economically responsible means of shifting to renewable energy via free market forces. Furthermore, CCA will establish a local market for energy production, which will lead to the development of new energy technologies within the city. The shift to renewable energy sources will reduce air pollution generated by fossil fuel burning. Importantly, CCA would help the city meet its state-mandated requirement to specify measures that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions. As highlighted in the General Plan, "Although often overlooked, modern life in Huntington Beach would be very difficult without abundant local and regional energy resources." I emphasize that CCA is a responsible and sustainable way to meet this important need, and I respectfully requests that the City Council carefully consider this option. Sincerely, Karen Coyne 18778 Club Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92648 HB -665-Item 8. -450 HB -489-Item 10. - 167 From: To: Subject: Date: July 6'd, 2017 KIRK NASON Villasenor Jennifer Public Comment on draft of City Thursday, July 06, 2017 12:46:12 PM Public Comment on draft of City of Huntington Beach General Plan Update (GPU) Ms. Vilasenor, I write to express my enthusiastic support of the Huntington Beach General Plan item ERC- P.13, which calls for a feasibility study of a Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) plan. Simply put, I prefer to choose my own energy providers. Currently, my only choice is to purchase energy from Southern California Edison, which charges the second-highest rates in California. Community Choice Aggregation is a better alternative, because it would foster free market competition leading to lower rates. In addition, CCAs can stimulate the development of high-tech energy suppliers within Huntington Beach, which would create local jobs and benefit our economy. Moreover, by offering multiple tiers of service with different levels of renewable energy, CCA would allow Huntington Beach to cheaply and sustainably meet its goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions without relying on industry or consumer regulations. The transition to renewable energy would also improve local air quality. Finally, if Huntington Beach embraces sustainable energy via CCA, it would reinforce our culture and identity as a "Surf City" that protects beaches by slowing sea level rise. Because HB Huddle is committed to individual freedoms, the well-being of Huntington Beach residents, and environmental protection, it follows that we are committed to CCA as well. Community Choice Aggregation will help Huntington Beach meet its vision of a healthy and safe city in which natural resources are protected (May 2017 draft, General Plan). For example, the General Plan envisions that in the near future, "local attractions, such as the beach ... draw tourists from near and far". In fact, tourism is listed as one of the top employment sectors in the city. Yet, sea level rise threatens most-if not all-of the city's beaches. CCA would help mitigate this threat by reducing greenhouse gas emissions and slowing climate change, which is the cause of sea level rise. In addition, the city's support of sustainable energy can be used in marketing campaigns to reinforce the "Surf City" image and draw additional tourists. The General Plan also envisions that by 2040, "the community has shifted to renewable energy resources and conservation practices. Support for local businesses to develop new technologies leads to the use of these technologies to support further conservation and sustainability." CCA is an economically responsible means of shifting to renewable energy via free market forces. Furthermore, CCA will establish a local market for energy production, which will lead to the development of new energy technologies within the city. The shift to renewable energy sources will reduce air pollution generated by fossil fuel burning. Importantly, CCA would help the city meet its state-mandated requirement to specify measures that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions. As highlighted in the General Plan, "Although often overlooked, modern life in Huntington Beach would be very difficult without abundant local and regional energy resources." I emphasize that CCA is a responsible and sustainable way to meet this important need, and I respectfully requests that the City Council carefully consider this option. lte1n 8. -451 HB -666-HB -490-Item 10. - 168 Sincerely, Kirk J. Nason 714 321-7298 Excuse brevity & typos HB -667-Item 8. -452 HB -491-Item 10. - 169 STATE OFCALIFORNIA-----CALIFORNIA STATE TRANSPORTATION AGENCY EDMUND G. ORO\VN Jr"'"' GoYcrnor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 12 3347 MICHELSON DRIVE, SUITE 100 IRVINE, CA 92612-8894 PHONE (949) 724-2000 FAX (949) 724-2019 TIY 711 WW\V.dot.ca.gov July 6, 2017 Ms. Jennifer Villasenor City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Ms. Villasenor: File: IGR/CEQA SCH#:2015101032 IGR Log#: 2017-00601 SR-1, SR-39, I 405 Serious Dro11gllt, Serious drought. Jlelp save water! Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the City of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Project. The City of Huntington Beach has initiated a comprehensive program to update its General Plan, which establishes an overall development capacity for the city and serves as a policy guide for determining the appropriate physical development and character of Huntington Beach over an approximate 25-year planning horizon (to 2040). The draft General Plan Update project includes a GHG Reduction Program, a Coastal Resiliency Program (CRP) as well as identifies preparedness goals, actions and an implementation strategy. The Draft General Plan will update nine elements, which include Land Use, Circulation, Environmental Resources I Conservation, Natural and Environmental Hazards, Noise, Infrastructure/Public Services, Historic/Cultural Resources, Housing, and Coastal. Regional access to the city is provided by SR-1, SR-39, and I- 405. Caltrans Local Development-Intergovernmental Review program reviews impacts of local development to the transportation system, including the State Highway System. We work to ensure that local land use planning and development decisions include the provision of transportation choices, including transit, intercity rail passenger service, air service, walking and biking, when appropriate. Caltrans advocates community design (e.g. urban infill, mixed use, and transit oriented development) that promotes an efficient transportation system and healthy communities. Caltrans is a responsible and commenting agency on this project and has the following comments: 1. The City needs to coordinate and submit Caltrans District 12 LD-IGR unit for review and comment any future project specific proposals and developments in proximity or along SR-1, SR-39, and I -405. Item 8. -453 "Provide a safe, sustainable. 1f1/egrated und e.fficie11/ lran~porlation system to enhance California's economy and livability" HB -668-HB -492-Item 10. - 170 Ms. Jennifer Villasenor July 6, 2017 Page 2 2. Figure CIRC-2 on page 3-14, the west end of Hamilton Avenue near Beach Boulevard is proposed as "Proposed Primary" Arterial Highway. However, in Figure CIRC-3 on page 3-15, the same section of Hamilton Avenue is denoted as "deleted from Master Plan of Arterial Highways". Is the City planning to extend Hamilton Avenue to Beach Boulevard? If yes, what is the proposed construction year? If no, please address the impact of mobility especially, in regards to Pacific Coast Highway. Please continue to keep us informed of this project and any future developments that could potentially impact State transportation facilities. If you have any questions or would like to meet with us regarding these comments, please do not hesitate to call Maryam Molavi at (657)328- 6280. If you have additional traffic-related questions in regards to the above comments, you may contact Jose Hernandez, Traffic Operations at (657)328-4611. MAUREEN EL HARAKE Branch Chief, Regional-Community-Transit Planning District 12 "Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California's economy and livability" HB -669-Item 8. -454 HB -493-Item 10. - 171 SHOPOFF i I l REALTY J INVESfME.NTS July 7, 2017 Jennifer Villasenor, Planning Manager City of Huntington Beach Community Development Department 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RE: City General Plan Update and Magnolia Tank Farm Project Dear Ms. Villasenor, As you are aware, ShopoffReally Investments, on behalf of SLF -HB Magnolia, LLC, has submitted applications to the City for the Magnolia Tank Farm Specific Plan project ("Tank Farm Project"). On June 20, 2017 the City Council initiated the formal environmental assessment process to analyze the Tank Farm Project. We are grateful to the City for commencing this process and we look forward working with the City in the future as we continue our public outreach efforts. Concurrently, the City has also been processing a comprehensive update of the City's General Plan ("GPU"). We have been following this effort, but have not previously offered formal comments on the proposed GPU. We are now submitting this letter, as owners of the site, regarding land designations being considered in the GPU for the Tank Farm Project site. As you know, we are in the process of preparing entitlement applications for the Tank Farm Project which will include a proposed General Plan Amendment and a comprehensive specific plan. We expect that our application will be submitted and deemed complete within the next few weeks. In the meantime, it is certainly possible, and perhaps likely, that the City will take action on the GPU update prior to the completion of the environmental assessment of the Tank Farm Project. We recognize that the May 2017 version of the proposed GPU Land Use Map designates the Magnolia Tank Farm site as "Public" (P) --which is consistent with the prior version of the City's General Plan. We understand that this designation has long been considered a "holding pattern" land use designation until a development was proposed on the Tank Farm Project site. We are also aware that Alternative Land Uses -including Research and Technology uses -have been considered for the Tank Farm Project site as part of the GPU effort. We recognize that the Tank farm Project will require discretionary legislative approvals from the City as well as a comprehensive environmental assessment process pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). Accordingly, regardless of the land use designation that is applied to our Project site as part of the GPU update, the purpose of this letter is to request that the City acknowledge our pending application as part of the GPU update. Because the City Council has already approved the commencement of our environmental assessment, we believe it is important to acknowledge our 1 Item 8. -45 5 poff.com I Tel: 949-417-1396 I Fax: 949-417-1: HB -6 7~-hopoff.com I 2 Park Plaza, Suite 700, Irvine, CA 92614 HB -494-Item 10. - 172 pending application so that the record is clear that the City Council may consider and take action to approve, or disapprove, future General Plan and Specific Plan proposals for the Tank Farm Project Site regardless of the land use designation that is applied to the site as part of the GPU. Simply stated, we believe the Record must be clear that whatever action the City takes on the GPU as it relates to our project site, does not and will not foreclose the City's ability to consider new General Plan land use designations for the Tank Farm Project site in the future. We thank you for your attention to this request and we look forward to working with the City in the future as we process our project entitlements. In the meantime, please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions at Jomalley@shopoff.com or (949) 769-6714. r~erely, \. f/,pi{ !l! 0 //2?t:~ //1a es M. O'Malley / / ~ e President of Development, Shi Realty Investments ! // l,, cc: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council ~ www.shopoff.com I Tel: 949-417-1396 I Fax: 949-417-1 HB. -6 71_:-hopoff.com I 2 Park Plaza, Suite 700, Irvine, CA Item 8 · -456 HB -495-Item 10. - 173 July 3'd, 2017 Jennifer Villasenor, Planning Manager City of Huntington Beach Community Development Department 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 jvillasenor@surfcity-hb.org Re: Public Comment on draft of City of Huntington Beach General Plan Update (GPU) Ms. Vilasenor, My name is Steve Shepherd, and I am writing to comment of the draft of the City of Huntington Beach's General Plan Update. I have lived in the City of Huntington Beach for nearly 30 years and also run a small business with my wife in the City. To say that I have a vested interested in the future of Huntington Beach would be an understatement. It is with the love of our City and the future of my family in mind that I offer the following comments. Specifically, I wish to offer my STRONG SUPPORT for the Huntington Beach General Plan Item ERC- p .13, which calls for a feasibility study of a Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) plan. This would appear to be a "no brainer" in terms of possible benefits to the City of Huntington Beach: residence, businesses, and environment. I support the further investigation into CCA viability in the City of Huntington Beach for five main reasons: 1) choice/competition, 2) local control, 3) local economic benefit, 4) increased local security, and 4) environmental leadership. First, I don't like monopolies! I like a competitive market where I am allowed to choose. Right now SCE is the only game in town. If I want power for my home and business, I am forced to buy power from SCE. I would like to have a choice, and a local choice at that. A Huntington Beach or Coastal Orange County CCA would provide me with a choice when purchasing my electricity Second, I like local control, and I want services and policies tailored to benefit my community. SCE services 14 million customers from coastal Orange County to the California/Nevada border. It's simply impossible for SCE to focus their service goals on the specific needs and desires of our community here in Huntington Beach. By California State law a CCA must be locally controlled and managed by a not-for-profit administrative board. Whereas SCE's first responsibility is to their shareholders, a CCA would be located in and accountable to our community and residents. Third, whenever possible, I find it preferable to deal with local businesses and entities, and I make an effort to buy goods and services in Huntington Beach. Why not the same for my electricity? I would much rather pump my hard-earned dollars into our local economy than sending my cash to SCE who commission services and makes investments over 50,000 square miles service area. How much of the money I send to SCE every month is coming back and invested in Huntington Beach? In addition to having my money staying local when I pay my power bills, I also see how a CCA could create more local jobs in the areas of design, engineering, construction, and skilled-labor as it relates to infrastructure upgrades and sustainable energy expansion. Ite1n 8. -457 HB -672-HB -496-Item 10. - 174 Fourth, as our community prepares to face future security threats -whether physical or cyber based - local control over our power will be key to keeping our essential services functioning and our residents safe. As seen in other active CCA's, various communities have sought to expand and solidify their local energy needs by upgrading local power generation and distribution. By developing more local power via renewable sources such as solar and wind and then coupling it with the development of a local "microgrid", Huntington Beach can minimize risks of power disruption and better assure the safety of its citizens. Fifth, as a coastal resident, I like to be a good steward for our environment. Our local environment - ocean, beaches, wetlands, clean water and clean air -was one of the things that originally attracted me to Huntington Beach decades ago, and now that my adult children and grandchild live here as well, I want to pass along our community's natural wonders to them. A CCA appears to be a good vehicle that will allow me to be both a good business person as well a good coastal steward. I see a terrific opportunity for renewable energy production through both wind and solar in Surf City, and given the importance of preserving our coastline and wetlands, this would appear to be a "win-win" for both my business and our environment future. While this is just "one resident's opinion", there is a mass of supporting data not only for the points I've raised but other positives associated with CCA's including - a way to comply with State Law requiring Greenhouse Gas Reductions, competitive advantage in attracting new businesses and investment into the City, regional environmental leadership, increased eco-tourism, etc., etc. As highlighted in this letter, I STRONGLY SUPPORT Huntington Beach General Plan Item ERC-P.13 and urge the City Council to move forward with a full investigation into the feasibility of a Community Choice Aggregation for Huntington Beach. Respectfully Submitted, Steven C. Shepherd, Architect 9462 Waterfront Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92646 HB -673-Item 8. -458 HB -497-Item 10. - 175 From: To: Subject: Date: Dan Jamjeson Villasenor Jennifer comment, HB general plan update Thursday, July 06, 2017 4:14;40 PM Dear Ms. Villasenor: Thank you for taking comment on the Huntington Beach (City) General Plan update (GPU). My suggested changes and comments follow. Specify Goals for Parks, Open Space, Trails The GPU should better explain park-service areas and buffers, and include a park- deficit analysis for each service area. (See, for e.g., the Newport Beach GP and its narrative for park service areas. http://www. new po rtbeachca .gov /P LN/Genera l_Pla n/09 _ Ch8 _Recreation_ web. pdf ) . The current draft GPU is unclear in this regard, and gives the City no guidance as to which areas of the City might be underserved by parks. The City should also maintain its current stated 5.4 acres of parkland for every 1,000 residents. The 5-acre goal sets too low a bar, essentially giving the City permission to continue its high rate of development without adding any new parks or open space. The GPU should include an affirmative statement that the City will dedicate the appropriate developer fees for the acquisition of new parks and open space. Furthermore, the City's parkland acreage total should include just the first 100 feet of beach, similar to Newport Beach's policy. The GPU should include language about improving public access to coastal areas, especially Huntington Harbor, where public access to the bay is severely limited. This should include enhanced access with waterfront public walkways, and protection from encroachments such as piers, floats, bulkheads and private/gated communities. The final GPU should also mention the planned improvement of the City-owned rail spur in North Huntington Beach, previously the Navy railroad right-of-way (Navy ROW). The draft GPU notes that parts of the Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way running east of Gothard Street is designated for a future transportation corridor. The Navy ROW runs generally east- west and connects with this Union Pacific spur, which runs north-south. Since the Navy ROW is already abandoned, it should be a priority for improvement as part of a future regional multi- use trailway. Indeed, the City has planned and budgeted money for this very purpose. (The city of Westminster has similar plans for its section of the Navy ROW. Unfortunately, a Item 8. -459 HB -674-HB -498-Item 10. - 176 misguided plan to store cars on the City portion of the Navy ROW seems to have delayed implementation of the trailway plan.) Ultimately, the Navy ROW spur and the Union Pacific right-of-way could connect into a much broader regional transportation system. Plus, an improved Navy ROW would be a wonderful attraction for employees who work in and around the McDonnell Centre Business Park and desire a quick break from city life. All of these railroad right-of-way projects would support the General Plan's goal of preserving railroad right-of-ways and improving transportation and recreational opportunities. Consider Extending the new Research & Technology Zoning to the McDonnell Centre Business Park Specific Plan north of Bolsa Avenue. Promote Green Development. The GPU proposes a new land-use designation, Research and Technology (RT), to enable a broader mix of lower-intensity industrial and commercial uses to attract new, growing businesses to the City. The current GPU proposes RT zoning south of Balsa Avenue only. However, implementing RT development in this area will require the turnover and redevelopment of individual parcels. This will be a slow, patchwork process, unlikely to create the kind of environment that cutting-edge employers will desire. In addition to a high-bandwidth infrastructure, these firms will want restaurants, entertainment and other visitor-serving and commercial amenities. Open areas for eating, meeting and breaks from the workday will also be desired. Additionally, walkways and bike trails would be key additions to attract tech firms. All of these amenities are in short supply south of Bo Isa, or simply do not exist. Further, the existing parcels south of Balsa are generally small, raising the question of whether many of these parcels will be large enough to accommodate the light manufacturing planned for the RT area. However, as Boeing exits the McDonnell Centre Business Park (MCBP) area, most of its existing land will be available for redevelopment. As a result, the City should consider the MCBP area for the new RT zoning. Large-scale redevelopment in the MCBP will be a prime opportunity to "jump start" implementation of the new RT zoning on a sizeable and integrated parcel, and begin to attract the kind of high-growth, high-value businesses and jobs the City desires. Within the RT zoning in the current MCBP area, the City should consider a mix of shops and eating/drinking establishments, open areas, public walking and biking space, and recreational facilities. I generally support the concept outlined in LU-P.14 of the GPU, allowing housing in RT areas. Any housing should be compatible with the zoning. For example, industrial, loft-type housing, plugged into the high-bandwidth of the area, located above or incorporated with nonresidential buildings, could help attract high tech businesses and employees, the latter of HB -675-Item 8. -460 HB -499-Item 10. - 177 which could walk or bike to work. The typical condos, townhomes and other multi-story residential units that litter much of the City now should not be built in RT-zoned parcels and would do nothing to distinguish RT-zoned areas. Please keep in mind that the MCBP area is the main entry point to the City's Northwest corner. The current Boeing facility has a recreation area with ball fields, tennis courts, a gym, basketball and volleyball courts, and landscaping including eucalyptus groves. The property makes a positive impression of the City as visitors enter. It would be a shame if the campus- like setting of the current Boeing property was lost to more of the non-descript warehouses that exist north of the property. These look-alike warehouses are carbon copies of industrial properties that can be found anywhere in Southern California. Building more of these buildings at the Northwest gateway to the City would mark Huntington Beach as just another faceless, sprawling suburb, rather than the type of world-class research and technology center that the City envisions. The General Plan should promote green development, including in the MCBP and RT zoned land. This should include provisions for green, energy-efficient and self-sufficient buildings, use of native plants and water-wise landscaping, prohibitions on the use of the wasteful turf slopes used by many commercial buildings, and inclusion of public open areas and walkways/trails within any development plans. Green development will help attract clean and green manufacturing. Finally, please note that the Northwest Industrial Subarea is also bordered by residential areas to the north (Spa Drive and surrounding streets). This fact should be incorporated into the GPU. The draft GPU says the area is bordered to the north by commercial developments and the 405 freeway. Sincerely, Dan Jamieson Huntington Beach ### Item 8. -461 HB -676-HB -500-Item 10. - 178 From: To: Subject: Date: ejacobs@soca!. rr. com Villasenor Jennifer RE: community comments to city plan Thursday, July 06, 2017 4:21:56 PM Thankyou for your note. I cannot copy and past it, the \Vrong docun1ent kept coining up. Basically, it was support for the city's continuing effort to protect the environ111ent and support the study of a CCA. 1 apologize for the inconvenience. Thank you for your consideration. Ellen ---- 11 Villasenor \Vrote: >Hi, > >I received your con1ment letter, but cannot open it. Will you please provide it in a different forn1at (word or pdf)? Or you can copy and paste directly into U1e body of your email. Thanks. > >Jennifer > > -----Original Message----- > From: ejacobs@socal.rr.com [1nailto:ejacobs@socal.rr.con1] >Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2017 3:31 PM >To: Villasenor, Jennifer > Subject comn1unity co1n1nents to city plan > >Thank you for your consideration of the attached public con1n1ent. HB -677-Item 8. -462 HB -501-Item 10. - 179 From: To: Subject: Greg Kordich Villasenor Jennifer Re:CCA Date: Thursday, July 06, 2017 5:58:53 PM Hi Jennifer, My wife and i are in support of the CCA study.We think it would generate income for the city and propel us as a leader in energy. We thought councilman Pedersons derogatory remarks about Antonia Grahams fine work for the city on CCA shows his extreme ignorance of her job duties and the CCA. WHAT a negative BLOW HARD. THANK YOU JENNIFER for your diligent work. Greg and Lynn Kordich 88369 Leeward dr. H. B. 92646 On Jul 6, 2017, at 4:39 PM, Villasenor, Jennifer wrote: Item 8. -463 Hello, I received an email, but there was no attachment and no text in the body of the email. Thank you. Jennifer From: Greg Kordich [mailto:llk2@mac.com] Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2017 4:30 PM To: Villasenor, Jennifer Subject: CCA HB -678-HB -502-Item 10. - 180 Jennifer Villasenor, Planning Manager City of Huntington Beach Community Development Department 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 jvillasenor@surfcity-hb.org Re: Public Comment on draft of City of Huntington Beach General Plan Update (GPU) Dear Ms. Villasenor, I completely agree with the following letter. I write to express my enthusiastic support of the Huntington Beach General Plan item ERC-P.13, which calls for a feasibility study of a Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) plan. Simply put, I prefer to choose my own energy providers. Currently, my only choice is to purchase energy from Southern California Edison, which charges the second-highest rates in California. Community Choice Aggregation is a better alternative, because it would foster free market competition leading to lower rates. In addition, CCAs can stimulate the development of high-tech energy suppliers within Huntington Beach, which would create local jobs and benefit our economy. Moreover, by offering multiple tiers of service with different levels of renewable energy, CCA would allow Huntington Beach to cheaply and sustainably meet its goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions without relying on industry or consumer regulations. The transition to renewable energy would also improve local air quality. Finally, if Huntington Beach embraces sustainable energy via CCA, it would reinforce our culture and identity as a "Surf City" that protects beaches by slowing sea level rise. Because HB Huddle is committed to individual freedoms, the well-being of Huntington Beach residents, and environmental protection, it follows that we are committed to CCA as well. Community Choice Aggregation will help Huntington Beach meet its vision of a healthy and safe city in which natural resources are protected (May 2017 draft, General Plan). For example, the General Plan envisions that in the near future, "local attractions, such as the beach ... draw tourists from near and far". In fact, tourism is listed as one of the top employment sectors in the city. Yet, sea level rise threatens most-if not all-of the city's beaches. CCA would help mitigate this threat by reducing greenhouse gas emissions and slowing climate change, which is the cause of sea level rise. In addition, the city's support of sustainable energy can be used in marketing campaigns to reinforce the "Surf City" image and draw additional tourists. The General Plan also envisions that by 2040, "the community has shifted to renewable energy resources and conservation practices. Support for local businesses to develop new technologies leads to the use of these technologies to support further conservation and sustainability." CCA is an economically responsible means of shifting to renewable energy via free market forces. Furthermore, CCA will establish a local market for energy production, which will lead to the development of new energy technologies within the city. The shift to renewable energy sources will reduce air pollution generated by fossil fuel burning. Importantly, CCA would help the city meet its state-mandated requirement to specify measures that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions. As highlighted in the General Plan, "Although often overlooked, modern life in Huntington Beach would be very difficult without abundant local and regional energy resources." I emphasize that CCA is a responsible and sustainable way to meet this important need, and I respectfully request that the City Council carefully consider this option. Sincerely, Juana Mueller, member HB Huddle I-IB -679-Ite1n 8. -464 HB -503-Item 10. - 181 CAMPAIGN July 7, 2017 Jennifer Villasenor, Planning Manager City of Huntington Beach Community Development Department 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 j vii la sen o r@surfcity-h b. org Re: Comments on EIR for the City of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Dear Ms. Villasenor, Climate Action Campaign (CAC) is a San Diego-based environmental nonprofit organization with a simple mission: to stop climate change and protect our quality oflife. Orange County for Climate Action (OCCA) is a grassroots activist network striving to address the threat of global climate change and mitigate its harn1ful effects through local action in Orange County. We are committed to helping local govenunents in southern California develop and implement policies, plans, and regulations that will stop climate change and protect the people and places we love for generations to come. CAC and OCCA appreciate the opportunity to provide comments on the EIR for the City of Huntington Beach's General Plan Update. The comments below focus on Appendix G, the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan (GGRP). Please accept the comments below, which address the shifts necessary in the GGRP to meet those criteria. 1. The GGRP Tracks State Targets Using Mass Emissions To Measure Citywide Reductions. We are pleased to see that the GGRP intends to reduce citywide emissions in line with state targets by implementing General Plan Policy ERC-5A, which calls for reduction of emissions 15% below 2005 levels by 2020 and 53.33% below that target by 2040. Achieving these reductions will put Huntington Beach on track to meet state goals, summarized below: • In 2016, SB 32 was signed into law, codifying Governor Brown's Executive Order B-30-15 setting a GHG reduction goal of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. These targets are in line with what is needed to protect our quality of life using best available science and are consistent with the Executive Order S-3-05, which calls for an 80 percent statewide GHG reduction by 2050. Climate Action Campaign 14452 Park Blvd. Suite 209, San Diego, CA 921161619-419-1222 Item 8. -465 info@cli1nateactioncainpaig _ ' ':::limateActionCampaign.org HB -680-1 HB -504-Item 10. - 182 CAMPAIGN 2. GGRPs Serving as CEOA Mitigation for a General Plan Must Include Enforceable & Measurable Strategies Since the GGRP will serve as mitigation for the General Plan Update, its reduction targets must be enforceable and measurable as mitigation under CEQA. Mitigation measures must be enforceable and once adopted, cannot be defeated by ignoring them. (Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21081.6(b); Sierra Club v. County of San Diego, 231 Cal. App. 4th 1152, 1167 (2014).) In addition, CEQA itselfrequires enforceable mitigation measures. (CEQA Guideline §15126.4(a)(2) ["Mitigation measures must be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other legally binding instruments."]. "A public agency shall provide that measures to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment are fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures." (Pub. Res. Code §21081.6(b)). Because the GGRP is a mitigation measure, it must be enforceable. Finally, where a GGRP is mitigation for the activities in the planning horizon of a GP, there must be enforceable standards with detailed deadlines, as well as substantial evidence that each mitigation measure will achieve the GHG reduction numbers assigned to each strategy. By including enforceable, detailed measures in a GGRP, the city can help ensure that the plan meets legal muster and fulfills its requirements under CEQA. Unfortunately, the GGRP for Huntington Beach contains primarily both unmeasurable and voluntary strategies and actions to reach its GHG reduction targets. In the Executive Summary, the GGRP states it will reach targets by "emphasizing actions that are voluntary, economically viable, consistent with community character, and advance the priorities of Huntington Beach residents, businesses, and visitors." That preference for voluntary actions holds throughout the plan. For example: • T-4 -Carsharing: Attract carshare services to Huntington Beach and promote them as a supplemental transpmiation service. • CA-2 -Green building awareness: Raise community awareness of green building strategies for new and significantly renovated buildings. Most strategies are not measurable, which makes them unenforceable. For example: • RE-6 -Community Choice Aggregation: Explore the feasibility of launching a community choice aggregation program to increase local control of energy sources. • EE-2 -Rental unit retrofits: Improve energy efficiency in residential rental units. Climate Action Campaign I 4452 Park Blvd. Suite 209, San Diego, CA 921161619-419-1222 info@clitnateactioncmnpaig ' ":::limateActionCampaign.org HB -681-Iten1 8. -466 HB -505-Item 10. - 183 CAMPAIGN • WW-I -Indoor water efficiency: Reduce indoor water use in the community. These strategies should be rewritten to include measurable targets. For example, the City of San Diego's Climate Action Plan contains goals, associated actions, and measurable targets that allow the city to evaluate whether the goals have been met. 1 3. Implementation and Monitoring Should Include Timeline and Cost Analysis We commend Huntington Beach for planning for annual monitoring of progress toward emissions reductions targets and the publication of mmual progress reports. The city should additionally commit to completing a full GHG inventmy at least eve1y three years, to allow the city and the public to gauge progress made toward implementing GGRP strategies, determine whether the local government is on track to meet GHG targets, and assess if adjustments are needed. The final GGRP should include a system to help city officials effectively prioritize strategies for implementation, and it should include a cost analysis for each strategy. These components allow the public to track whether the city is on track to meet its targets and help local governments set sufficient budgeting and staff levels at the appropriate time. 4. The GGRP Should Include Established Best Practices for Climate Planning We further urge the GGRP for Huntington Beach to include best practices for climate planning established by cities throughout California, including I 00 percent renewable energy, significant transportation mode share targets, and jobs and social equity measures. 100 Percent Renewable Energy The Climate Action Plans of the cities of San Diego and Del Mar commit to 100 percent clean energy by the year 2035, and several other cities across the region are expected to make similar commitments this year. In addition, as noted previously, California Senate Leader Kevin de Leon has introduced legislation to transition the entire state to 100 percent clean energy by 2045. We recommend that Huntington Beach include a 100 percent clean energy goal, which closely aligns with California Executive Orders B-30-15 and S-3-05 (in fact, for cities that tie their Climate Plans to their General Plan updates it is often the only way to hit long-term state GHG targets). By embracing a 100 percent clean energy future, all families of Huntington Beach will benefit because renewable energy helps clean the air, builds healthy communities, and spurs local 1 https :/ /www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/final_ju ly_ 2016 _cap. pdf Climate Action Campaign 14452 Park Blvd. Suite 209, San Diego, CA 92116 I 619-419-1222 Item 8. -467 info@cli1nateactioncarnpaig ' "2li1nateActionCampaign.org 1-!B -682-3 HB -506-Item 10. - 184 CAMPAIGN investment and well-paying jobs from clean energy technologies. In addition, adding a I 00 percent clean energy goal in Huntington Beach would signal a region-wide commitment to the shift to renewables. It is increasingly clear that 100 percent clean energy is the future in California and across the nation: the City of Huntington Beach's GGRP should reflect a commitment to keep pace with the region and the state. Transportation A1ode Share Targets Currently, the GGRP identifies the following mode share performance measures: bicycle mode share at 2.65% in 2020 and 3.45% in 2040, and bus ridership at 2% in 2020 and 5% in 2040. The plan should also identify pedestrian mode share in both 2020 and 2040. Fmther, the plan should specify whether the mode share targets identified are for all trips or for commutes only. Finally, the city should consider adopting more ambitious mode share targets. For example, the City of San Diego states its goal as, "Achieve mass transit mode share of 12% by 2020 and 25% by 2035 in Transit Priority Areas, achieve walking commuter mode share of 4% by 2020 and 7% by 2035 in Transit Priority Areas, and, achieve 6% bicycle commuter mode share by 2020 and 18% mode share by 2035 in Transit Priority Areas." These ambitious goals were adopted because transp01iation remains a significant source of GHG emissions. Shifting away from reliance on cars as the primary mode of transportation reduces GHG emissions and has the co-benefits of improved public health, safety, and air quality. Ambitious mode share goals also help municipalities plan and budget to facilitate a shift away from car-centric growth, as well as advocate for assistance for better transit infrastructure. Improvements to bicycle infrastructure should focus on separated bikeways, which recent research has demonstrated are far more effective at increasing ridership than painted bike lanes.2 Jobs and Social Equity While climate change impacts eve1yone, it hits hardest in low-income and communities of color that face a disproportionate pollution burden. The State of California has recognized the challenges facing Environmental Justice communities and prioritized those areas for allocation of Cap and Trade funds. San Diego was the first city in California to adopt a CAP that utilizes a statewide monitoring tool called Ca!EnviroScreen, which identifies vulnerable communities and can be used to direct investment and benefits to these neighborhoods. We recommend that Huntington Beach's GGRP include an Environmental Justice section that utilizes Ca!EnviroScreen to prioritize populations hit first and worst by climate change. Programs in EJ 2 Pucher, John, and Ralph Buehler. 2016. "Safer Cycling Through Improved Infrastructure." American Journal of Public Health 106(12): 2090-1. Climate Action Campaign I 4452 Park Blvd. Suite 209, San Diego. CA 921161619-419-1222 info@clhnateactionca1npaig ' ':liinateActionCampaign.org HB -683-Item 8. -468 HB -507-Item 10. - 185 \!ii;{ CLIMATE. CTIDN CAMPAIGN communities might include ensuring all populations in the city have access to solar energy, home energy efficiency upgrades, and green spaces. Lastly, the city should address how GORP strategies can create good-paying jobs for residents and improve quality of life in neighborhoods throughout the Huntington Beach. Conclusion Thank you again for the oppmiunity to weigh in on this critically impo1iant planning document. According to the most recently available data and climate science, there is no greater threat to the future of humanity than climate change. It is incumbent on us to protect our kids and grandkids from the adverse impacts of a heated planet. Therefore, we must employ public policy that facilitates new ways to power our lives and move through our cities while sharply reducing our GHG emissions. We also encourage Huntington Beach to embrace the economic oppmiunities embedded in a clean energy economy. California has proven that improving our environment and improving our economy go hand in hand. The most successful cities are those which are planning for a 21st century economy powered by renewable energy and clean energy jobs. We look forward to continued participation in the public review process for the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan and would be happy to provide additional information or clarification in order to ensure that this planning document preserves public health and enhances quality of life for all Huntington Beach families. Sincerely, Sophie Wolfram, Policy Advocate sophie@climateactioncampaign.org Roger J. Gloss, Advocacy, Special Projects roger. gloss@occlimateaction.org Climate Action Campaign 14452 Park Blvd. Suite 209, San Diego, CA 921161619-419-1222 Item 8. -469 info@cli1nateactioncampaig ' ":.:litnateActionCampaign.org HB -684-5 HB -508-Item 10. - 186 EDMOND M. CONNOR MATTHEW J. FLETCHER DOUGLAS A. HEDENKAMP MICHAEL SAPIRA JAMES M. NAH DAVID R. RUTAN CONNOR, FLETCHER & HEDENKAMP LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW VIA E-MAIL AND HAND DELIVERY Ms. Jennifer Villasenor Planning Manager City of Huntington Beach Community Development Department 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 JVillasenor@surfcity-hb.org July 7, 2017 Re: Draft Program Environmental Impact Report for City's General Plan Update Dear Ms. Villasenor: We are the attorneys for the Ocean View School District ("OVSD") and we have been asked to provide you with OVSD's comments on the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report SCH No. 2015101032 (the "Draft EIR") for the General Plan Update currently being processed by the City of Huntington Beach (the "City"). In addition to comments on the Draft EIR, we will also be providing comments on the General Plan Update itself. As a threshold matter, we note that, after the 45-day review period for the Draft EIR ends on July 7, 2017, the City has scheduled two public study sessions regarding the General Plan Update to be held on July 11 and 25, 2017. OVSD kindly requests that the Draft EIR review period be extended until after the July 25th study session in order to give OVSD and the public a better opportunity to fully understand the components and impacts of the General Plan Update before being required to submit final written comments on the Draft EIR. In this regard, we specifically request that the public comment period be extended to Friday, July 28, 2017. We understand that the Draft EIR is a Program EIR and is thus a first-tier document under Guideline section 15168(a). However, a first-tier EIR is still required to analyze the environmental impacts of the development associated with and facilitated by the General Plan Update. For that reason, we believe that it would be beneficial for all involved if the public comment period were extended until after all interested commentators, such as OVSD, were able to learn more about the General Plan Update and the possible impacts relating thereto. 2211 MICHELSON DRIVE, SUITE 1100 IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92612 T: 949.622.2600 E-MAIL: econnor@businesslit.com HB -685-Item 8. -470 HB -509-Item 10. - 187 Ms. Jennifer Villasenor July 7, 2017 Page 2 OVSD'S COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR A. Project Description Section 3.3 In order for the Draft EIR to properly identify and analyze the environmental impacts that would result if the General Plan Update were adopted by the City Council, the Project Description needs to accurately describe the development that is anticipated to occur with adoption of the Update. Unfortunately, the Project Description falls short of this goal for the reasons set forth below: 1. The Draft EIR does not adequately identify the location of proposed development. Figure 3-3 depicts existing land uses based on a GIS database created in 2005 and updated in 2014. Figure 3-4 shows the proposed development capacity. However, to try to compare these two Figures to determine what changes are actually being proposed is extremely difficult and yields no positive results. Notably, Figure 8 in Appendix J, Existing Land Use Technical Report, depicts the parcels that were changed between 2005 and 2014. The Draft EIR needs to provide a similar Figure, along with a Table, showing the parcels and specific plans that are predicted to intensify and thereby generate the additional residential units and the additional non-residential square footage assumed in the Project Description. 2. The Project Description states the General Plan Update establishes an overall development capacity of 7,228 residential units. However, this does not appear accurate in light of what is stated in Section 4.14 Transportation/Traffic. On page 4.14-10, the Draft EIR states that "the majority of [the 7,228] dwelling units would be low density residential followed by medium high density." In contrast, however, Table 4.14-1, General Plan Update Land Use and Trip Generation Summary, assumes a decrease of 1,361 single-family dwelling units and an increase of 8,589 multi-family medium residential units. Therefore, the majority of the proposed development will not be single-family dwellings, but, rather, multi-family units. Given these inconsistencies, the Project Description needs to provide an accurate, detailed account of the number and type of residential units anticipated to be developed following the adoption of the General Plan Update. 3. Table 3-2, Land Use Designations, is inconsistent with the Project Description and the Transportation/Traffic sections of the Draft EIR and needs to be revised to accurately describe the development associated with the General Plan Update. Table 3-2 indicates a development capacity of 88,964 dwelling units. However, Table 3-3 indicates a different number: 85,360 dwelling units. Table 4.14-1 in the Transportation/Traffic section states yet another figure: 85,483. The Draft EIR needs to eliminate these inconsistencies, ciarify the development capacity assumptions, and consistently analyze the project throughout the Draft EIR. 4. Table 3-2 needs to provide the Density/FAR range for the Mixed Use Overlay, Specific Plan Overlay, and Mixed-Use land use designations and explain the assumptions depicted in Table 3-3, Proposed General Plan Update Development Capacity. Item 8. -471 HB -686-HB -510-Item 10. - 188 Ms. Jennifer Villasenor July 7, 2017 Page 3 5. The two overlay designations, Specific Plan Overlay and Mixed Use Overlay, are unclear on Figure 3-4, Land Use Map. A separate map showing the locations of the Specific Plan Overlay and the Mixed Use Overlay should be provided. 6. The Project Description states the General Plan Update establishes an overall capacity of 5,384,920 square feet of non-residential development. This figure is not consistent with what is stated in Section 4.14, Transportation/Traffic. On page 4.14-10 of the Draft El R, the additional 5,384,920 square feet of non-residential development is described. However, Table 4.14-1, General Plan Update Land Use and Trip Generation Summary, shows that there is actually a net difference of 13,099,000 square feet of additional non-residential development over the existing condition. Even with considering only Commercial and Industrial/Manufacturing, the increase is 6,525,000 square feet of additional non-residential development. The Project Description needs to be corrected to accurately describe the additional development capacity to be generated by the General Plan Update. 7. On page 4.14-11, the Draft EIR explains that the General Plan Update assumes the highest growth will occur in Multi-Family Residential, Commercial, and Industrial/Manufacturing land uses over the next 25 years. As noted above, the Project Description describes a lower amount of anticipated development (5,384,920 sq. ft.), but there are no land use regulations or restrictions incorporated into the General Plan Amendment to achieve this lower figure. The General Plan Update needs to incorporate policies and implement land use restrictions in order to ensure that development associated with the Update does not exceed 5,384,920 square feet of non-residential development. Alternatively, the Project Description and impact analysis need to be revised. 8. On page 3-19, Technology and Innovation Subareas, the Project Description for the Northwest Industrial Subarea identifies potential land use compatibility issues, but needs to explain what assumptions were used in arriving at the conclusion that the introduction of the Research and Technology land use designation in areas adjacent to single-family residential neighborhoods would be more compatible with surrounding sensitive uses than the "typical industrial uses." 9. On page 3-19, Technology and Innovation Subareas, Gothard Overlay, the Project Description needs to be corrected to accurately depict the existing condition and the anticipated condition with the implementation of the Gothard Subarea. Although the Project Description identifies the proximity of the Gothard Subarea to sensitive uses, it incorrectly states that there is merely a "potential" for land use compatibility issues. Over the past several years, (a) public testimony at various City Council and Planning Commission meetings, (b) public testimony at hearings held by the Southern California Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), and (c) the issuance of numerous air quality Notice of Violations have conclusively demonstrated that there are serious land use conflicts in the Gothard Subarea between the industrial and sensitive land uses. This needs to be adequately described in the Draft EIR. 10. On page 3-19, Technology and Innovation Subareas, Gothard Overlay, although the Project Description identifies the proximity of the Gothard Subarea to sensitive uses, it fails to describe the existing environmental justice designation of the Oak View neighborhood that is directly impacted by the Gothard Subarea. CalEnviroScreen has identified the Oak View HB -687-Item 8. -472 HB -511-Item 10. - 189 Ms. Jennifer Villasenor July 7, 2017 Page4 Community, defined by its census tract, as a community of concern for environmental justice due to its proximity to industrial land uses. OVSD operates an elementary school and a preschool, serving over 900 students in the Oak View community. This area has the highest pollution burden of 81 -90% in the city of Huntington Beach. B. Air Quality Section 4.2 The Air Quality Section of the Draft EIR does not adequately analyze the air quality impacts associated with the General Plan Update and needs to be revised as described below: 11. The Draft EIR needs to be revised to indicate what land use data is being used to determine the baseline condition for air quality. Without such data, the air quality impacts associated with the development allowed under the General Plan Update cannot be properly understood or analyzed. 12. The analysis set forth on page 4.2-2 in Section 4.2.1.2, Local Air Quality, is inadequate and needs to be revised to comprehensively describe the existing local air quality conditions and sources of existing pollutants. At a minimum, the following revisions need to be made to the Draft EIR: Ite1n 8. -473 a) The air quality Notice of Compliance, Notice of Violation and Abatement actions by the SCAQMD that have occurred in the Planning Area since 2012 need to be addressed and should be identified by location on a map of the Planning Area. b) The discussion in the Local Air Quality section is limited to solely identifying carbon monoxide hotspots in the Planning Area. The Draft EIR needs to provide justification for only addressing one air quality threshold. c) A Particulate Matter Hot Spot Analysis needs to be conducted for the Planning Area using either CAL3QHCR or AERMOD to determine existing areas of particulate matter generation. d) Air pollution sources in the Planning Area, such as major arterials, freeway, industrial land uses, need to be identified and addressed, in addition to vehicle miles traveled. e) Section 4.2.1.2, Local Air Quality, needs to be revised to provide information on the health impacts of roadway pollutants on adjacent sensitive land uses as described in the 2012 Air Quality Management Plan, Chapter 9, Near Roadway Exposure and Ultrafine Particles concerning the health effects of exposure to roadway ultrafine particles, including asthma exacerbation, decreased lung function, increased heart disease, increased risk of low birth weight and premature delivery, lower immune function and increased risk of Type 2 diabetes. In addition, children are among the most susceptible and greatly affected by exposure to traffic-related pollutants and an analysis of project impacts on school-age children needs to be included. HB -688-HB -512-Item 10. - 190 Ms. Jennifer Villasenor July 7, 2017 Page 5 13. Draft EIR Volume I-Technical Background Reports, Air Quality, includes a Figure 1, TAC Emitters. However, there is no discussion about Figure 1. For example, there is no analysis in the Draft EIR of the impact of the 67 TAC Emitters identified in Figure 1. TAC stands for Toxic Air Contaminants and SCAQMD has published Air Quality Significance Thresholds, (Exhibit 1) to establish the standards used to determine when an industry or business is identified as a TAC Emitter. The Draft EIR needs to be revised to provide information on existing TAC Emitters with respect to location, threshold exceedance, AQMD rule violations, greenhouse gas emission exceedances in the Planning Area, and the recommendations from the Air Resource Board for locating sensitive receptors and inclusion of mitigation measures to lessen TAC emitter impacts. 14. The Draft EIR needs to provide justification as to why CalEEMod was not used for Localized Significance Thresholds. 15. Based on the increase in non-residential uses and the diesel emissions generated from trucks associated with the increase in industrial land use, the Draft EIR needs to prepare a Health Risk Assessment in accordance with SCAQMD Health Risk Assessment Guidelines for Analyzing Cancer Risks from Mobile Source Diesel idling emissions for a CEQA air quality analysis. 16. The Draft EIR needs to prepare an air quality compatibility study for the General Plan Update using the California Air Resources Board Air Quality Land Use Compatibility Handbook. 17. The California Air Resources Board Air Quality Land Use Compatibility Handbook states; "In addition to source specific recommendations, we also encourage land use agencies to use their planning processes to ensure the appropriate separation of industrial facilities and sensitive land uses." The General Plan Update and Draft EIR need to incorporate policies and measures to reduce land use compatibility issues by: a) Prohibiting uses that potentially generate diesel emissions, TAC emitters, dust and odors generators within 1,000 feet of existing sensitive uses; b) Requiring increased setbacks and increased landscape requirements for uses in the Gothard Subarea; and c) Requiring conditional use permits for all uses in the Gothard Subarea and Northwest Industrial Subarea within 1,000 feet of existing sensitive uses. 18. Mitigation measures need to be incorporated in to the Draft EIR to ensure adequate distance between potential TAC emitters and sensitive land uses. OVSD requests the inclusion of the following mitigation measure at a minimum: All new industrial and commercial development projects that have the potential to emit TACs shall be required to be located an adequate distance from existing and proposed development used by sensitive receptors, unless a project-specific evaluation of human health risks is conducted and the results of the evaluation determine that no significant impact would occur to the satisfaction of the City's decision-making authority. Sensitive HB -689-Item 8. -474 HB -513-Item 10. - 191 Ms. Jennifer Villasenor July 7, 2017 Page 6 receptors include residential, schools, day care facilities, congregate care facilities, hospitals, or other places of long-term residency. The determination of development projects that have the potential for TAC emissions and adequate distances from sensitive receptors are identified in the California ARB's "Air Quality and Land Use Handbook-A Community Health Perspective (April 2005; California ARB Guidance). 19. Section 4.2.3, Project Impacts and Mitigation, needs to be revised to describe the air quality impacts of adding 13,099,000 square feet of non-residential development. The analysis needs to discuss types of pollutants expected from industrial and commercial land uses proposed in the General Plan Update. Appendix A of the Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective, California Environmental Protection Agency, California Air Resources Board, April 2005, provides a table of Land Use Classifications and Associated Facility Categories That Could Emit Air Pollutants, see Exhibit 2 and the impact on sensitive land uses adjacent to industrial land uses. 20. Section 4.2.3, Project Impacts and Mitigation, also needs to be revised to analyze the projected increase in TAC Emitters anticipated with adding 13,099,000 additional non-residential square footage under the General Plan Update. 21. Section 4.2.3, Project Impacts and Mitigation, Localized Significance Thresholds, assumes that "Development project resulting from the implementation of the General Plan Update would be required to undergo environmental review, at which time LST analysis would be applicable." However, this is not the case and should not be assumed by the Draft EIR. The existing zoning for Industrial, Zoning Code Section 212.04 Industrial General and Industrial Light list the Land Use Controls for Industrial Districts (Exhibit 3). There are a significant number of use classifications that are "permitted" in the Industrial District that have potential to emit key pollutants, such as laboratories, maintenance and repair services, research and development services, vehicle/equipment repair, vehicle storage, industrial, custom, industrial general, industrial limited, industrial R&D, and wholesaling, distribution and storage. These same use classifications are identified as associated with emitting air pollution in Appendix A of the Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective, California Environmental Protection Agency, California Air Resources Board, April 2005. That Appendix provides a table of Land Use Classifications and Associated Facility Categories Thal Could Emit Air Pollutants. However, if these use classifications are permitted uses under the Zoning Code, the approval for development is ministerial, not discretionary, and no air quality analysis will be required for development. Section 4.2, Air Quality, needs to be revised to include mitigation measures that require all industrial and commercial uses to apply for and obtain conditional use permits prior to development to ensure that the assumed environmental review and air quality analysis are conducted prior to development. 22. Section 4.2.3.3 states: "The General Plan Update does not propose, nor would ii facilitate, land uses that would be considered significant sources of objectionable odors". However, this is not the case. In the Planning Commission Study Session Summary, dated June 13, 2017 (Exhibit 4) Research and Technology land use designation is described as including eating and drinking establishments that have industrial components for example a brewery. A brewery is odor generating not only at the facility, but also with respect to the waste that is generated by the process, including the mash and wastewater. The objectionable odor may also impact greenhouse gas emissions from sewers. (Exhibits 5 and 6). The Draft EIR Ite1n 8. -475 HB -690- HB -514-Item 10. - 192 Ms. Jennifer Villasenor July 7, 2017 Page 7 needs to be revised to analyze the environmental impacts associated with the proposed Research and Technology designation, which is an industrial classification. The Draft EIR should not assume that this land use is cleaner or greener unless mitigation measures and development standards are in place to require clean and green development. 23. The Impact Analysis in Section 4.2.3.2 needs to be corrected regarding creation of objectionable odors from industrial and research and development land uses. This analysis concludes that Zoning Code Section 204.12(D) is sufficient to reduce impacts from the General Plan Update to less than significant. The analysis seems to imply that the director [of Community Development?] has the discretion to prohibit industrial and research and technology development uses based on the anticipated production of offensive odor, dust, noise, vibration, but this is not the case. Zoning Section 204.12, Industrial Use Classification (Exhibit 7) describes Industrial, General as typically a high incidence of truck or rail traffic, and/or outdoor storage, chemical manufacturing, food processing, laundry and dry cleaning plants, concrete products and power generating. All of the uses are known to generate odors. Furthermore, Industrial, General is a permitted use under the Zoning Code Section 212.04. Only Research and Development includes the director's discretion concerning uses that generate air quality pollutants. 24. The Draft EIR needs to provide information on the types and numbers of Research and Development applications that the director has previously determined would produce offensive odor, dust, noise or vibration in order to understand how this process has worked to protect adjacent uses. In addition, the Draft EIR needs to explain how the director will exercise authority for ministerial projects. 25. The conclusion that the odors associated with the construction and operation of development under the General Plan Update would be less than significant is not supported by the analysis and needs to be revised. In addition, mitigation measures need to be included to reduce the odor impacts. The City needs to incorporate development standards and policies to reduce odor exposure in the Planning Area, such as requiring any operation that has the potential of producing odor to be within a carbon air filtered enclosure and requiring conditional use permits that examine all of the environmental impacts of the use. As noted above, a brewery has site odor issues, wastewater odor issues, and generates odors from disposing of waste mash. 26. The impact analysis for compliance with applicable air quality plans on page 4.2- 6 utilizes the 2012 Air Quality Management Plan ("2012 AQMP"). However, the conclusion that the General Plan Update is in compliance is based on 2016-2040 SCAG RTP/SCS, April 2016 population data. This inflates the population numbers to appear to be closer in compliance than is actually the case. If the Draft EIR relies on the 2012 AQMP, then it should use the 2012 SCAG RTP/SCS data. The 2012 SCAG establishes a 205,500 population figure compared to General Plan Update 211,051. Therefore the conclusion that the General Plan Update will result in a less than significant impact is incorrect and needs to be revised to show a significant impact. 27. Concerning population and employment data, the City's website provides current population data and 2013 employment data that identifies the population of Huntington Beach HB -691-Item 8. -476 HB -515-Item 10. - 193 Ms. Jennifer Villasenor July 7, 2017 Page 8 as 202,413 in 79,353 households and the employment as 117,700. These numbers are significantly greater than what is being used in the regional planning documents especially for employment that results in significant air quality impacts that have not been analyzed by the Draft EIR or AQMP. The Draft EIR needs to explain why the City's own demographic data was not used to analyze the impacts of the General Plan Update. 28. The impact analysis for compliance with applicable air quality plans on page 4.2- 6 uses does not include employment that is part of compliance with the 2012 AQMP. SCAG RTP/SCS 2012 establishes a maximum employment of 80,600 and the General Plan Update is predicting 87,000. The impact analysis needs to be revised to analyze compliance with applicable air quality plan for employment generated air quality impacts. 29. On page 4.2-8, the Draft EIR concludes that the General Plan Update "would be consistent with the 2012 and 2016 AQMP." However, there is no analysis showing how the update complies with the 2016 AQMP, particularly with employment. If the 2016 AQMP is the air quality plan for compliance purposes, then the Draft EIR needs to incorporate the revised standards, threshold, and mitigation associated with the 2016 AQMP into the General Plan Update. 30. On page 4.2-9, the Operation impact analysis understates the air pollutant emissions relating to the General Plan Update with respect to source categories typically associated with residential development. The Draft EIR needs to include source air pollutants associated with industrial development, such as dust and odor, diesel particulate matter, chemicals and solvents, VOCs, etc. Reference should be made to Air Quality Issues Regarding Land Use for additional information along with suggested goals, objectives and policies related to land use (Exhibit 8). 31. On page 4.2-9, the Draft EIR concludes that, with respect to predicting operational emissions generated by the development associated with the General Plan Update, there is no land use information. OVSD disagrees because the General Plan Update identifies growth between existing and 2040 by land use type with detailed square footage. The Draft EIR should include an analysis of projected operation emissions from the residential and the non- residential land uses associated with General Plan Update. The air quality analysis should provide a "worst case" analysis similar to what is provided for the circulation/traffic impacts. 32. On page 4.2-10, the Draft EIR states that SCAQMD does not recommend calculation of operational emissions for planning documents, such as the General Plan Update. The Draft EIR should reference the documentation that shows that this is SCAQMD's position regarding air quality impacts associated with adopting general plans. 33. The General Plan Update should include air quality mitigation goals to reduce exposure to sensitive uses, including the following: Ite1n 8. -477 Through land use plans provide heightened consideration of policies and strategies to minimize exposure of sensitive receptors and sites (e.g., schools, hospitals, and residences) to health risks related to air pollution. HB -692-HB -516-Item 10. - 194 Ms. Jennifer Villasenor July 7, 2017 Page 9 34. On page 4.2-14, the Draft EIR states; "Future projects resulting from implementation of the General Plan Update would be required to undergo environmental analysis to determine whether each project results in significant air quality impact and would also have to implement policies from the General Plan Update to the extent feasible". This assumption is not well founded in that industrial land use categories are "permitted" in contrast to "conditionally permitted" uses under the Zoning Code. Also, industrial projects may seek a categorical exemption from CEQA for "infill" development. Therefore, these industrial uses, many of which have the potential to emit air pollutants, are approved without discretion and therefore no additional environmental analysis would be required prior to development. The air quality impact analysis cannot rely on future environmental analysis for ministerial industrial development projects or infill projects exempt from CEQA and needs to include mitigation measures to require subsequent air quality analysis for all commercial and industrial development associated with the General Plan Update. 35. On page 4.2-15 of the Draft EIR, the impact analysis for Localized Significance Thresholds states: "While specific construction and operational activity under the General Plan Update cannot be determined at this time and the General Plan Update does not contain any specific projects, there is no impact from LSTs due to the General Plan Update". Clearly, there are Localized Significance Thresholds ("LSTs") associated with the development of 7,288 multi- family residential units and 5,384,920 square feet of non-residential development contemplated by the General Plan Update. The air quality analysis needs to be revised to include an analysis of these LSTs. 36. On page 4.2-18 of the Draft EIR, the air quality analysis concludes that the anticipated growth under the General Plan Update is consistent with the 2012 AQMP. The Draft EIR needs to provide information to support this conclusion since the air quality analysis used 2016 SCAG population and employment data, instead of 2012 SCAG data. 37. On page 4.2-19 of the Draft EIR, the analysis concludes that the General Plan Update will be consistent with the current AQMP, but it is unclear what AQMP this section is referring to and this should be clarified. 38. On page 4.2-19, the Draft EIR concludes that the General Plan Update would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to air quality and would result in less than significant cumulative impact due to inconsistency with the AQMP. However, there is no supporting analysis for this conclusion since employment data was not used, the amount of employment is significantly understated in SCAG and AQMP data, and 2016 population data was used for the 2012 AQMP. Therefore, the General Plan Update will, in fact, result in significant cumulative impacts due to inconsistency with the AQMP. This section needs to be revised to correctly analyze cumulative impacts associated with the General Plan Update. C. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Section 4.7 39. This Section states in the Environmental Setting that proximity of schools to waste facilities is an important factor when making decisions on the location of new development since children are more susceptible to hazardous materials and emissions. On page 4. 7-4, the impact analysis needs to be revised to include exposure of hazardous materials HB -693-Item 8. -478 HB -517-Item 10. - 195 Ms. Jennifer Villasenor July 7, 2017 Page 10 to the Oak View neighborhood, Oak View Elementary and Preschool, CDC Preschool and Head Start preschool from potential toxic emissions and exposure from the Orange County Household Hazardous Waste Collection Center located on Nichols Lane, as well as Republic Services, an identified TAC emitter. The growth associated with the General Plan Update will increase the current use by residents and businesses of the collection center and transfer station resulting in greater risk of exposure to adjacent sensitive uses. OVSD requests that the City of Huntington Beach exercise its land use authority to relocate Orange County Household Hazardous Waste Collection Center to a more appropriate location that does not expose sensitive uses to accidental releases of hazardous materials. D. Land Use and Planning Section 4.9 40. The Draft EIR needs to provide consistent population, household and employment data for analysis throughout the document. The Land Use and Planning section identifies 78, 175 residential housing units in 2014 and the General Plan Update is projected to add 7,228 residential units for a total of 85,403 household units at the 2040 build-out of the General Plan. However, SCAG and SCAQMD based regional plans on 81,200 households, this means that these regional plans were based on 4,203 fewer residential units. The Draft EIR must demonstrate its impact analysis is consistent with these regional plans in order to make a finding of less than significant impact. 41. As discussed in the Air Quality section referenced above, the City seems to have significantly understated its employment data that was used to formulate SCAG and SCAQMD regional plans. The City's website states there were 117, 700 employed persons in 2013. The addition of 5,384,920 square feet of non-residential with the General Plan Update will significantly increase this number. Table 4.14-1 indicates that there will be an increase of 13,099,000 in non-residential development. Even if only increases in square footage associated with Commercial and Industrial uses were considered, it would still result in an increase of 6,525,000 square feet. Based on the data provided in Table 4.14-1, there are 1.3435 jobs per 1,000 square feet of non-residential development that would result in 17,599 additional jobs in Huntington Beach associated with the increase in non-residential development for a total employment figure of 135,299 in 2040. This is substantially more than the SCAG and SCAQMD AQMP projection of 87,000 in 2040. The Draft EIR needs to provide justification for the data used and must correct the inconsistencies that appear throughout the document. 42. On page 4.9-3, Open Space Land Use, the Draft EIR states the Planning Area includes 3,27 4 acres of open space, but the document needs to specify what percentage of these open space areas consist of school properties which are used as pocket parks by the City. The Draft EIR should use the most accurate data to discuss the existing condition and project conditions. 43. Section 4.9.2.3, Impact Analysis states that the General Plan Update assumes future development would be scaled to complement adjoining uses, but there are no mitigation measures or implementation policies to ensure that this assumption is borne out in connection with future development. The Draft EIR and General Plan Update need to be revised to incorporate mitigation and implementation measures and policies to ensure future development is scaled to complement adjoining uses. Ite1n 8. -479 HB -694-HB -518-Item 10. - 196 Ms. Jennifer Villasenor July 7, 2017 Page 11 44. Section 4.9.2.3, Impact Analysis, states; "While non-residential maximum intensity/floor-to-area ratio is proposed to increase for some land use designations, the changes would reflect what is currently allowed under the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance." This statement is not accurate as presented in the Draft El R since the new industrial classification of Research and Technology is a 1.0 FAR that is greater than the existing .75 FAR for industrial uses. The Draft EIR needs to provide a list of non-residential land use designations that will increase in maximum intensity/floor-area-ratio under the General Plan Update, but still be consistent with the current Zoning Code. 45. Public schools and the state Education Code required outdoor facilities (playgrounds) are an essential government function and need to be protected by the local land use control agency from land uses that diminish the function of the school's educational purpose. The Draft EIR needs to provide an analysis demonstrating that the City of Huntington Beach is supporting public school functions and using land use controls to reduce environmental impacts on school properties from the General Plan Update. 46. On page 4.9-5, the Impact Analysis states the Research and Technology land use designation will provide a buffer between the heavier industrial and non-industrial land uses. The Draft EIR needs to provide an analysis demonstrating how Research and Technology will provide a buffer since there are no development standards, or mitigation or implementation measures, to require "clean" uses. This assumption is not supported by the General Plan Update goals, policies and implementation measures and the Draft EIR needs to be revised to correct this. 47. On page 4.9-8, the assumption that Research and Technology within the Northwest Industrial and Gothard district would serve to attract less-intense industrial uses and reduce the amount of heavy industry within the planning area is not supported by the General Plan Update goals, policies and implementation measures and the Draft EIR analysis of consistency with SCAG 2008 RCP needs to be revised to correct this. 48. On page 4.9-9, Table 4.9-1, SCAG 2016-2040 RTP/SCS Goals, the statement that the industrial and commercial land uses associated with the Research and Technology land use designation are more compatible with surrounding sensitive land uses is not supported by the General Plan Update goals, policies and implementation measures and the analysis of consistency with SCAG 2016-2040 RTP/SCS needs to be revised to correct this. 49. On page 4.9-11, the Draft EIR states; "Under the General Plan Update, the allowable floor-to-area ratio is proposed to be updated for several non-residential land use designations; however, these updates would align with the existing floor-to-area ratio requirements of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances." The Draft EIR needs to specify what non-residential land uses are proposed to be updated and should also explain how these updates are consistent with the existing FAR in the Zoning Code. There is no discussion in the General Plan Update about FAR updates. This analysis needs to be clarified and made consistent with the General Plan Update. HB -695-Item 8. -480 HB -519-Item 10. - 197 Ms. Jennifer Villasenor July 7, 2017 Page 12 50. On page 4.9-13, Cumulative Impacts, the Draft EIR concludes that cumulative impacts associated with inconsistency of future development with adopted plans and policies would be less than significant based on anticipated review for consistency by the County of Orange, City of Huntington Beach, and other incorporated cities. This is circular reasoning and is not appropriate for analyzing cumulative impacts. The Draft EIR needs to be revised to provide adequate justification or should make findings of significant cumulative impact. 51. On page 4.9-13, Cumulative Impact, the Draft EIR concludes that future development would be substantially compatible with existing land uses. However, the General Plan Update and Draft EIR identify significant land use compatibility issues between existing sensitive uses and industrial uses that are expected to continue under the General Plan Update. Before a finding of less than significant cumulative impact can be made, this Section needs to be revised to identify the land use compatibility issues in the General Plan Update and provide mitigation measures to lessen land use incompatibly in the Planning Area. 52. On page 4.9-13, Cumulative Impact, the statement that subsequent CEQA review would minimize the potential for cumulative projects to physically divide an established community is not supported by the Impact Analysis in the Draft EIR or the General Plan Update and needs to be revised. 53. On page 4.9-13, Cumulative Impact, the Draft EIR states the General Plan Update would not conflict with existing land use plans, policies, or regulations of agencies with jurisdiction over the Planning Area. However, this is not a correct statement because it conflicts with analyses concerning air quality, noise, and regional plan consistency. This section needs to be revised to accurately describe the significant cumulative impacts associated with the General Plan Update. 54. The Draft EIR makes assumptions and conclusions about the environmental impacts and benefits of the proposed new Research and Technology land use classification. However, the General Plan Update and Draft EIR do not define or describe this land use with respect to permitted and conditionally permitted uses and development standards, such as setback, building height, and landscaping. In order to properly understand and analyze the environmental impacts on the Planning Area and surrounding land uses in the Northwest Industrial and Gothard Subareas, the General Plan Update should include information on what uses this land use category will include, what uses will be permitted by right, and what will be conditionally permitted. Since the Draft EIR relies on assumptions of the type of uses and development standards associated with the Research and Technology land use designation the proposed zoning should also be part of the Project Description. By not providing this important information until after the General Plan Update is approved, the City is engaging in improper segmentation of the project, which is prohibited by CEQA because, among other things, it prevents adequate mitigation measures from being considered and adopted. E. Noise Section 4.10 55. The Draft EIR needs to address Land Use-Noise Compatibility Standards when commercial and industrial uses are adjacent to sensitive land uses such as schools. Table 7 in Volume I, Technical Background Report, depicts the Noise Ordinance exterior standards. It Item 8. -481 HB -696-HB -520-Item 10. - 198 Ms. Jennifer Villasenor July 7, 2017 Page 13 indicates that, for all industrial properties, the acceptable noise level is 70 dBA any time of day or night and residential properties have an acceptable noise level of 55 dBA daytime and 50 dBA nighttime. However, there is no listing for other sensitive land uses such as schools. The existing General Plan identifies sensitive uses to include schools, similar to what is stated in the General Plan Update and Draft EIR. Because of this inconsistency between the General Plan and the Noise Ordinance, industrial zoned uses were allowed to locate and expand across Nichols Lane from Oak View Elementary School. Even though the exterior noise standard in the General Plan for schools is up to 60 dBA, this standard was allowed to be violated by the permitted industrial use since its parcel had a 70 dBA standard. As explained in Volume I, Noise and Section 4.10 of the Draft EIR, the noise standard is not the loudest level of sound that can be emitted and still is in compliance with the standard. OVSD contends that, on any given school day, there are numerous significant noise events from surrounding Industrial Uses that are over 60 dBA in a four-hour period on the school playground that would result in interference with communication between children and children and teachers. The Draft EIR needs to incorporate mitigation measures and development standards to be adopted as part of the Noise Ordinance to eliminate land use conflicts concerning noise between industrial and commercial properties and sensitive land uses by applying the lower noise level standard. 56. The General Plan Update includes Goal N-1.A; Maintain acceptable stationary noise levels at existing noise-sensitive land uses such as schools, residential areas, and open space. However, unless the Noise Ordinance is revised to accomplish this goal, it will not be accomplished for the existing sensitive land uses currently impacted by noise from non- compatible land uses. The Draft EIR should adopt mitigation measures and the City should fund code enforcement for noise level violations. 57. The area of the City most impacted by noise from existing industrial users is the Oak View neighborhood identified, on page 4-13 of the General Plan Update, as a community of concern for environmental justice by the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. Disadvantaged communities such as Oak View bear a disproportionate burden of environmental harms and risks, including those resulting from the negative environmental consequences of industrial, government and commercial operations or programs and policies. Children in minority and/or low-come population groups are more likely to be exposed to and have increased health risks from environmental pollution than the general population. In the recent past, a Huntington Beach code enforcement officer has indicated to the Oak View community that code enforcement is on a "complaint only" basis. Community members responded that they feared retaliation from landlords if they complained. Also, limiting code enforcement to only complaints requires citizens to be aware of complicated regulations and to understand their rights that are also compounded by the disadvantaged community status. The Draft EIR and General Plan Update need to adopt mitigation and policy measures to provide for active noise monitoring and to work with individual noise generators to bring their operations into compliance with the Noise Ordinance. 58. The General Plan Update includes significant increases in commercial and industrial land uses in the Planning Area. Commercial and industrial uses are associated with increase trucking, such as diesel truck traffic, and air brake and engine noise, that is greater than a passenger vehicle or light truck. The Draft EIR needs to analyze the increase in noise HB -697-Iten1 8. -482 HB -521-Item 10. - 199 Ms. Jennifer Villasenor July 7, 2017 Page 14 levels by type of vehicle generated from the proposed industrial uses, instead of only analyzing vehicle miles traveled for mobile noise source. 59. The General Plan Update has indicated that the areas that will have the most increase in industrial use are the Northwest Industrial and Gothard Subareas. Table 3 in Appendix K depicts the average 24-hour noise levels that currently exceed community noise level standards in these areas, L T-1 and L T-3. The Draft EIR needs to analyze these locations with respect to increases in noise levels that can be expected to occur with the implementation of the General Plan Update. 60. On page 4.10-4, the Draft EIR discusses noise sensitive receptors, but limits its discussion to sensitive land uses adjacent to major streets. The Draft EIR needs to be revised to identify other existing areas of the City that are experiencing high noise levels on a regular basis, such as the Oak View neighborhood due to nearby industrial uses. The Draft EIR needs to include mitigation measures to lessen noise impacts from stationary uses on existing sensitive land uses by the implementation of land use controls. 61. Similar to the air quality analysis, the noise analysis assumes that all development projects facilitated by the General Plan Update will prepare an acoustical study in order to mitigate the development projects impact on noise levels (N-2.A). This is not correct because many industrial land uses are permitted as ministerial uses under the Zoning Code. As such, there is no discretion to require an acoustical study. The Draft EIR needs to include a mitigation measure that all industrial and commercial development shall require a conditional use permit to ensure that all future development projects prepare acoustical studies as assumed in the Draft EIR. 62. On page 4.10-20, the Draft EIR concludes that the community ambient noise levels would result from vehicle-related noise, but that there are no available or feasible mitigation measures that would reduce ambient noise levels and exposure below the noise level standards for the community. OVSD disagrees with this conclusion and respectfully submits that the City needs to take proactive steps to reduce community ambient noise levels by establishing noise level limits for industrial uses in the Noise Ordinance, working with noise generators to bring operations into compliance with the Noise Ordinance, limiting hours of operation that generate noise levels that exceed adjacent sensitive land use standards and actively enforcing the Noise Ordinance without the necessity of a code violation complaint. F. Population, Housing, and Employment Section 4.11 63. The population, housing and employment data presented in this Section of the Draft EIR is not consistent with the data present in (a) Appendix L, Economic Development Trends and Conditions, (b) Section 4.14 Transportation/Traffic or (c) the City's demographic information. The Draft EIR appears to understate the population and employment numbers and in turn, understate the environmental impacts of the General Plan Update. The Draft EIR needs to be revised to state consistent data and to accurately analyze the environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the General Plan Update through year 2040. Item 8. -483 HB -698-HB -522-Item 10. - 200 Ms. Jennifer Villasenor July 7, 2017 Page 15 64. On page 4.11-5, the Draft EIR states that the growth anticipated by the General Plan Update includes a minor amount of units to be added to the BECSP to account for potential future capacity increase. The Draft EIR need identify the number of residential units to be added to BECSP over the current limit of 2, 100 units. This information should be included in the Project Description since it is a known assumption. G. Public Services Section 4.12 65. On page 4.12-11, the Draft EIR states that the General Plan Update will generate 4, 770 additional elementary and 867 middle school students that will need to be accommodated by the City's three school districts. Since the additional 7,228 residential units are to be developed on land zoned for Medium Residential, the Draft EIR needs to provide information on the amount of anticipated additional Medium Residential development that will occur in each of the three school districts and it should also indicate the areas in the Planning Area where this residential development is assumed to occur in order for the OVSD to properly understand the impacts of the General Plan Update on its schools. 66. Although the Draft EIR assumes that the increase in residential development would occur downtown and in Holly-Seacliff, there is no goal, policy or implementation measure in the General Plan Update that would limit where residential development could occur in the Planning Area. At the June 13, 2017 Planning Commission study session on the General Plan Update, City staff stated that the residential units associated with the General Plan Update were redevelopment of single family to multi-family in Medium Residential zones. 67. The General Plan Update establishes only a net increase in residential units (7,228), but does not identify where these units will occur in the Planning Area or the type of residential unit to be developed. Table 4.14-1 in the Transportation/Traffic section is the only identification of the type of residential units, multi-family, that is assumed in the General Plan Update. Since there are no goals, policies or implementation measures to control where residential development occurs, it could reasonably be inferred that all additional units would be built within OVSD's boundaries. The Draft EIR needs to provide more detailed information regarding the impact of the General Plan Update on schools in the Planning Area. 68. The conclusion stated in the Draft EIR that the General Plan Update will not impact schools because existing schools are operating under capacity and non-operating schools are leased for other land uses is not supported by facts and needs to be revised. The reality is that some schools may be operating at or over capacity and would be significantly impacted by the General Plan Update. The Draft EIR cannot assume that the school districts can easily relocate students from one school to another, or open leased schools, to readily accommodate the additional students to be generated by the General Plan Update. The Draft EIR and General Plan Update need to include policies requiring the City and developers to coordinate with school districts regarding development associated with the General Plan Update. The current General Plan includes a policy to require development applicants to meet with school districts prior to submittal of development applications and this should be expanded to include the City and should be incorporated into the General Plan Update. 1-!B -699-Item 8. -484 HB -523-Item 10. - 201 Ms. Jennifer Villasenor July 7, 2017 Page 16 69. At the June 27, 2017 Planning Commission Study Session on the Draft EIR, staff explained that the 7,228 dwelling units associated with the General Plan Update were parcels in Medium Residential zones that had single family units that could be redeveloped for attached or multi-family units, thus increasing the existing number of units. Section 4.12, Public Services, states on page 4.12-11, "the General Plan Update would allow for an increase in residential development in the city, within certain areas, such as Holly-Seacliff and the Downtown area, likely to result in more residential development than others." As noted above, the Draft EIR needs to specify in detail where the additional residential development is anticipated to occur and state the number of expected residential units that are slated for each location. H. Recreation Section 4.13 70. On page 4.13-1, the Draft EIR states there are approximately 1,073 acres of parkland within 79 parks, golf courses, city facilities and beaches. The Draft El R needs to identify what percentage of the 1,073 acres is actually owned by OVSD and used by the City as pocket parks through an at-will arrangement with OVSD. Each of these pocket parks should be identified by name and location. 71. The Draft EIR should include an analysis regarding whether any of the school sites that are currently included in the 1,073 acres of parkland are subject to closure. Using the City parkland standard of 5 acres per 1,000 residents, the City would need 1,055 acres of parkland for the population projected with the implementation of the General Plan Update. Therefore, the Draft EIR should be revised to acknowledge that, even if there were a reduction of up to 18 acres of parkland associated with school closures, the City would still meet its parkland standard. 72. On page 4.13-2, the Draft EIR states that, even with a projected population of 211,051 residents by 2040, the goal of 5 acres per 1,000 residents would be met. The Draft EIR needs to state whether there is any anticipation that parkland will be decreased with the implementation of the General Plan Update. I. Alternatives Analysis of Project Alternatives 73. On page 5-8, Section 5.3.3, Alternative 3: Gothard Corridor Land Use Change (Gothard Corridor Alternative), the Draft EIR states that the Research and Technology land use would "result in a marked increase in trip generation" that would result in increased noise and air quality impacts than the existing industrial land use category. OVSD disagrees with this conclusion because, if Research and Technology is cleaner and greener as assumed in the General Plan Update and Draft EIR, it would not generate diesel truck trips associated with heavy industrial uses normally anticipated in the Industrial land use classification. The analysis for Alternative 3 relies solely on an increase in ADT to determine the environmental impacts of that Alternative. The traffic study for Rainbow Environmental Services established a passenger vehicle equivalent for determining impact from the anticipated truck traffic at 3 to 1, Exhibit 9. In order for the community to understand the potential impacts of implementation of the General Plan Update, the analysis in Alternative 3 needs to be revised to include a discussion of diesel truck traffic similar to what the City used for the traffic study associated with Rainbow Environmental Services. Ite1n 8. -485 HB -700-HB -524-Item 10. - 202 Ms. Jennifer Villasenor July 7, 2017 Page 17 74. Even though it would result in a higher FAR and associated ADT, Alternative 3 is the superior environmental alternative because the uses would be cleaner and greener due to significantly reduced diesel trucking generated by heavy industrial operations. 75. Given the impacts identified in the Alternative 3 analysis of using the new Research and Technology land use as a buffer between industrial and sensitive land uses, OVSD submits that a reasonable project alternative to be analyzed in the Draft EIR would be to reduce industrial intensity in the Gothard Subarea. This alternative could be accomplished by reducing the industrial FAR to .35 instead of. 75. This would result in reduced vehicie miles traveled, ADT, air quality and noise impacts on the Oak View neighborhood. This alternative would be the environmentally superior alternative compared to the project. The City could still accomplish its project objectives by increasing industrial acreage in the Northwest Industrial Subarea. The Draft EIR should be revised to inciude an analysis of this alternative. * * * Once again, OVSD respectfully requests that the Draft EIR comment period be extended to July 28, 2017, for the reasons stated on page 1 above. In addition, OVSD looks forward to receiving the City's written responses to each of the comments set forth above. uly yours, Enciosures l-!B -701-Item 8. -486 HB -525-Item 10. - 203 Exhibit 1 Item 8. -487 HB -702-HB -526-Item 10. - 204 South Coast Air Quality Management District 21865 Copley Diive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4182 (909) 396-2000 • www.aqmd.gov SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds Mass Daily Thresholds " Pollutant Construction b NOx 100 lbs/day voe 75 lbs/day PMlO 150 lbs/day PM2.5 55 lbs/day SOx 150 lbs/day co 550 lbs/day Lead 3 lbs/day Operation c 55 lbs/day 55 lbs/day 150 lbs/day 55 lbs/day 150 lbs/day 550 lbs/day 3 lbs/day Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs), Odor, and GHG Thresholds TACs Maximu111 Incre1nental Cancer Risk~ 10 in 1 n1illion (including carcinogens and non-carcinogens) Cancer Burden > 0.5 excess cancer cases (in areas;::: 1 in 1 inillion) Chronic & Acute Hazard Index?' 1.0 (project increment) Odor Project creates an odor nuisance pursuant to SCAQMD Rule 402 GHG 10,000 MT/yr C02eq for industrial facilities Ambient Air Quality Standards for Criteria Pollutants d N02 SCAQMD is in attai111nent; project is significant if it causes or contributes to an exceedance of the following attaitunent standards: I-hour average 0.18 ppm (state) annual arithmetic tnean 0.03 ppm (state) and 0.0534 ppm (federal) PMlO 24-hour average l 0.4 µg/m 3 (construction) e & 2.5 µg/m 3 (operation) annual average 1.0 11~/m3 PM2.5 24-hour average 10.4 µg/m 3 (construction)e & 2.5 µg/m3 (operation) S02 1-hour average 0.25 ppm (state) & 0.075 ppm (federal-991h percentile) 24-hour average 0.04 ppm (state) Sulfate 24-hour average 25 µg/m'(state) co SCAQMD is in attaimnent; project is significant if it causes or contributes to an exceedance of the following attaininent standards: I -hour average 20 ppm (state) and 35 ppm (federal) 8-hour average 9.0 ppm (state/federal) Lead 30-day Average 1.5 µg/m 3 (state) Rolling 3-month average 0.15 µg/m 3 (federal) " Source: SCAQMD CEQA Handbook (SCAQMD, 1993) b Construction thresholds apply to both the South Coast Air Basin and Coachella Valley (Salton Sea and Mojave Dese11 Air Basins). c For Coachella Valley, the mass daily thresholds for operation are the sa1ne as the construction thresholds. d Ambient air quality thresholds for criteria pollutants based on SCAQMD Rule 1303, Table A-2 unless otherwise stated. e Ambient air quality threshold based on SCAQMD Rule 403. KEY: lbs/day= pounds per day ppm= parts per million µglm 3 =microgram per cubic 1neter 2:: =greater than or equal to MT/yr C02eq =metric tons per year of C02 equivalents >=greater than Revision: March 2015 HB -703-Iten1 8. -488 HB -527-Item 10. - 205 Exhibit 2 Item 8. -489 HB -704-HB -528-Item 10. - 206 APPENDIX A LAND USE CLASSIFICATIONS AND ASSOCIATED FACILITY CATEGORIES THAT COULD EMIT AIR POLLUTANTS (1) (4) Land Use (2) (3) Classifications -Facility or Project Examples Key Pollutantsii,m Air Pollution bv Activitv' Permitsiv COMMERCIAL/ LIGHT INDUSTRIAL: SHOPPING, BUSINESS, AND COMMERCIAL Dry cleaners; drive-through restaurants; gas dispensing facilities; .. Primarily retail shops aulo body shops; metal plating shops; and stores, office, photographic processing shops; Limited; Rules for commercial textiles; apparel and furniture voes, air toxics, including activities, and light upholstery; leather and leather diesel PM, NOx, CO, SOx applicable industrial or small products; appliance repair shops; equipment business mechanical assembly deaning; printing shops .. Goods storage or handling activities, characterized by loading and unloading goods at Warehousing; freight-forwarding voes, air toxics, including warehouses, large centers; drop-off and loading areas; No' storage structures, distribution centers diesel PM, NOx, CO, SOx movement of goods, shipping, and trucking. LIGHT INDUSTRIAL: RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT .. Medical waste at Incineration; surgical and medical research hospitals instrument manufacturers, Air toxics, NOx, CO, SOx Yes and labs pharmaceutical manufacturing, biotech research facilities .. Electronics, electrical Computer manufacturer; integrated apparatus, components, and circuit board manufacturer; semi-Air toxics, VOCs Yes accessories conductor production .. College or university Medical waste incinerators; lab Air toxics, NOx, CO, SOx, lab or research chemicals handling, storage and Yes center disposal PM10 Satellite manufacturer; fiber-optics .. Research and manufacturer; defense contractors; development labs space research and technology; new Air toxics, VOCs Yes vehicle and fuel testing labs .. Commercial testing Consumer products; chemical labs handling, storage and disposal Air toxics, VOCs Yes A-1 HB -705-Item 8. -490 HB -529-Item 10. - 207 APPENDIX A (1) (4) Land Use (2) (3) Classifications -Facility or Project Examples Key Pollutants"·;;; Air Pollution by Activity' Permits iv INDUSTRIAL: NON- ENERGY-RELATED Adhesives; chemical; textiles; apparel and furniture upholstery; clay, glass, and stone products production; asphalt materials; cement manufacturers, wood products; paperboard containers and boxes; metal plating; metal and canned food product fabrication; auto manufacturing; food processing; printing and publishing; drug, vitamins, " Assembly plants, and pharmaceuticals; dyes; paints; pesticides; photographic chemicals; voes, air toxics, including manufacturing polish and wax; consumer products; diesel PM, NOx, PM, CO, Yes facilities, industrial metal and mineral smelters and Sox machinery foundries; fiberboard; floor tile and cover; wood and metal furniture and fixtures; leather and leather products; general industrial and metalworking machinery; musical instruments; office supplies; rubber products and plastics production; saw mills; solvent recycling; shingle and siding; surface coatings INDUSTRIAL: ENERGY AND UTILITIES " Water and sewer Pumping stations; air vents; treatment Voes, air toxics, NOx, Yes ooerations CO, SOx, PM10 Power plant boilers and heaters; " Power generation portable diesel engines; gas turbine NOx, diesel PM, NOx, Yes and distribution engines co, sox, PM10, voes Refinery boilers and heaters; coke voes, air toxics, including " Refinery operations cracking units; valves and flanges; diesel PM, NOx, CO, SOx, Yes flares PM10 " Oil and gas Oil recovery systems; uncovered wells NOx, diesel PM, VOCs, Yes extraction CO, SOx, PM10 " Gasoline storage, Above and below ground storage voes, air toxics, including transmission, and tanks; floating roof tanks; tank farms; diesel PM, NOx, CO, SOx, Yes marketing pipelines PM10 " Solid and hazardous Landfills; methane digester systems; waste treatment, voes, air toxics, NOx, storage, and process recycling facility for concrete CO, SOx, PM10 Yes disposal activities. and asphalt materials CONSTRUCTION (NON- TRANSPORTATION) PM (re-entrained road Limited; state dust), asbestos, diesel Building construction; demolition sites PM, NOx, CO, SOx, and federal off- PM10. voes road equipment standards A-2 Item 8. -491 HB -706-HB -530-Item 10. - 208 APPENDIX A (1) (4) Land Use (2) (3) Classifications -Facility or Project Examples Key Pollutants"·"' Air Pollution bv Activitv1 Permits iv DEFENSE Ordnance and explosives demolition; Limited; range and testing activities; chemical voes, air toxics, including prescribed production; degreasing; surface diesel PM, NOx, CO, SOx, burning; coatings; vehicle refueling; vehicle and PM10 equipment and engine operations and maintenance solvent rules TRANSPORTATION VOCs, NOx, PM (re- Residential area circulation systems; entrained road dust) air parking and idling at parking toxics e.g., benzene, • Vehicular movement structures; drive-through diesel PM, formaldehyde, No establishments; car washes; special acetaldehyde, 1,3 events; schools; shopping malls, etc. butadiene, co, Sox, PM10 • Road construction Street paving and repair; new highway voes, air toxics, including diesel PM, NOx, CO, SOx, No and surfacing construction and expansion PM10 • Trains Railroads; switch yards; maintenance yards Recreational sailing; commercial • Marine and port marine operations; hotelling Limited; activities operations; loading and un-loading; Applicable state servicing; shipping operations; port or VOCs, NOx, CO, SOX, and federal MV marina expansion; truck idling PM10, air toxics, including standards, and diesel PM Aircraft Takeoff, landing, and taxiing; aircraft possible • maintenance; ground support activities equipment rules • Mass transit and Bus repair and maintenance school buses NATURAL RESOURCES Limitedv1; Agricultural Agricultural burning; diesel operated burning Diesel PM, VOCs, NOx, requirements, • Farming operations engines and heaters; small food PM10, CO, SOx, applicable state processors; pesticide application; pesticides and federal agricultural off-road equipment mobile source standards; nesticide rules • Livestock and dairy Dairies and feed lots Ammonia, VOCs, PM10 Yes vii one rations Limited; Off-road equipment e.g., diesel fueled Diesel PM, NOx, CO, Applicable • Logging state/federal chippers, brush hackers, etc. sox, PM10, voes mobile source standards Quarrying or stone cutting; mining; PM10, co, sox, voes, Applicable • Mining operations NOx, and asbestos in equipment rules drilling or dredging some aeoaraohical areas and dust controls A-3 1-!B -707-Item 8. -492 HB -531-Item 10. - 209 APPENDIX A (1) (4) Land Use (2) (3) Classifications -Facility or Project Examples Key Pollutants"·"' Air Pollution bv Activitv' Permitsiv RESIDENTIAL Fireplace emissions Housing developments; retirement (PM10, NOx, voes, CO, Housing air toxics); No vii developments; affordable housing Water heater combustion (NOx, voes, CO) ACADEMIC AND INSTITUTIONAL " Schools, including Schools; school yards; vocational school-related training labs/classrooms such as auto Air toxics Yes/No viii recreational activities repair/painting and aviation mechanics " Medical waste Incineration Air toxics, NOx, CO, Yes PM10 " Clinics, hospitals, convalescent homes Air toxics Yes ' These classifications were adapted from the American Planning Association's "Land Based Classification Standards." The Standards provide a consistent model for classifying land uses based on their characteristics. The model classifies land uses by refining traditional categories into multiple dimensions, such as activities, functions, building types, site development character, and ownership constraints. Each dimension has its own set of categories and subcategories. These multiple dimensions allow users to have precise control over land- use classifications. For more information, the reader should refer to the Association's website at http://www.plan n i ng. orq/LBCS/General Info/. " This column includes key criteria pollutants and air toxic contaminants that are most typically associated with the identified source categories. Additional information on specific air toxics that are attributed to facility categories can be found in ARB's Emission Inventory Criteria and Guidelines Report for the Air Toxics Hot Spots Program (May 15, 1997). This information can be viewed at ARB's web site at http://www.arb.ca.gov/ab2588/final96/guide96.pdf. Criteria air pollutants are those air pollutants for which acceptable levels of exposure can be determined and for which an ambient air quality standard has been set. Criteria pollutants include ozone (formed by the reaction of volatile organic compounds and nitrogen oxides in the presence of sunlight), particulate matter, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, and lead. Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) combine with nitrogen oxides to form ozone, as well as particulate matter. VOC emissions result primarily from incomplete fuel combustion and the evaporation of chemical solvents and fuels. On-road mobile sources are the largest contributors to statewide VOC emissions. Stationary sources of VOC emissions include processes that use solvents (such as dry-cleaning, degreasing, and coating operations) and petroleum-related processes (such as petroleum refining, gasoline marketing and dispensing, and oil and gas extraction). Areawide VOC sources include consumer products, pesticides, aerosols and paints, asphalt paving and roofing, and other evaporative emissions. Nitrogen oxides (NOx) are a group of gaseous compounds of nitrogen and oxygen, many of which contribute to the formation of ozone and particulate matter. Most NOx emissions are produced by the combustion of fuels. Mobile sources make up about 80 percent of the total statewide NOx emissions. Mobile sources include on- road vehicles and trucks, aircraft, trains, ships, recreational boats, industrial and construction equipment, farm A-4 Item 8. -493 HB -708-HB -532-Item 10. - 210 APPENDIX A equipment, off-road recreational vehicles, and other equipment. Stationary sources of NOx include both internal and external combustion processes in industries such as manufacturing, food processing, electric utilities, and petroleum refining. Areawide source, which include residential fuel combustion, waste burning, and fires, contribute only a small portion of the total statewide NOx emissions, but depending on the community, may contribute to a cumulative air pollution impact. Particulate matter (PM) refers to particles small enough to be breathed into the lungs (under 10 microns in size). It is not a single substance, but a mixture of a number of highly diverse types of particles and liquid droplets. It can be formed directly, primarily as dust from vehicle travel on paved and unpaved roads, agricultural operations, construction and demolition. Carbon monoxide (CO) is a colorless and odorless gas that is directly emitted as a by-product of combustion. The highest concentrations are generally associated with cold stagnant weather conditions that occur during winter. CO problems tend to be localized. An Air Toxic Contaminant (air toxic) is defined as an air pollutant that may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or in serous illness, or which may pose a present or potential hazard to human health. Similar to criteria pollutants, air toxics are emitted from stationary, areawide, and mobile sources. They contribute to elevated regional and localized risks near industrial and commercial facilities and busy roadways. The ten compounds that pose the greatest statewide risk are: acetaldehyde; benzene; 1,3-butadiene; carbon tetrachloride; diesel particulate matter (diesel PM); formaldehyde; hexavalent chromium; methylene chloride; para-dichlorobenzene; and perchloroethylene. The risk from diesel PM is by far the largest, representing about 70 percent of the known statewide cancer risk from outdoor air toxics. The exhaust from diesel-fueled engines is a complex mixture of gases, vapors, and particles, many of which are known human carcinogens. Diesel PM is emitted from both mobile and stationary sources. In California, on-road diesel-fueled vehicles contribute about 26 percent of statewide diesel PM emissions, with an additional 72 percent attributed to other mobile sources such as construction and mining equipment, agricultural equipment, and other equipment. Stationary engines in shipyards, warehouses, heavy equipment repair yards, and oil and gas production operations contribute about two percent of statewide emissions. However, when this number is disaggregated to a sub- regional scale such as neighborhoods, the risk factor can be far greater. m The level of pollution emitted is a major determinant of the significance of the impact. ''Indicates whether facility activities listed in column 4 are generally subject to local air district permits to operate. This does not include regulated products such as solvents and degreasers that may be used by sources that may not require an operating permit per se, e.g., a gas station or dry cleaner. 'Generally speaking, warehousing or distribution centers are not subject to local air district permits. However, depending on the district, motor vehicle fleet rules may apply to trucks or off-road vehicles operated and maintained by the facility operator. Additionally, emergency generators or internal combustion engines operated on the site may require an operating permit. ''Authorized by recent legislation SB700. vii Local air districts do not require permits for woodburning fireplaces inside private homes. However, some local air districts and land use agencies do have rules or ordinances that require new housing developments or home re-sales to install U.S. EPA-certified stoves. Some local air districts also ban residential woodburning during weather inversions that concentrate smoke in residential areas. Likewise, home water heaters are not subject to permits; however, new heaters could be subject to emission limits that are imposed by federal or local agency regulations. '"'Technical training schools that conduct activities normally permitted by a local air district could be subject to an air permit. A-5 HB -709-Item 8. -494 HB -533-Item 10. - 211 Exhibit 3 Item 8. -495 HB -710-HB -534-Item 10. - 212 \Yp P1--1::;vfu\1.s; f\\ex'l' l'-1afn. ZONING CODE Title 21 ZONING CODE-BASE DISTRICTS ChaRter 212 I INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS 212.04 IG and IL Districts-Land Use Controls In the following schedules, letter designations are used as follows: "P" designates use classifications pennitted in the I districts. "L" designates use classifications subject to certain limitations prescribed by the "Additional Provisions" which follow. "PC" designates use classifications pe1mitted on approval of a conditional use permit by the Planning Commission. "ZA" designates use classifications pennitted on approval of a conditional use permit by the Zoning Administrator. "TU" designates use classifications allowed upon approval of a temporary use permit by the Zoning Administrator. "P/U" for an accessory use means that the use is permitted on the site of a pennitted use, but requires a conditional use permit on the site of a conditional use. Use classifications that are not listed are prohibited. Letters in parentheses in the "Additional Provisions" column refer to requirements following the schedule or located elsewhere in this zoning code. Where letters in parentheses are opposite a use classification heading, referenced provisions shall apply to all use classifications under the heading. IG and IL Districts: Land Use Controls P = Pennitted L = Li1nited (see Additional Provisions) PC= Conditional use pennit approved by Planning Com1nission ZA = Conditional use permit approved by Zoning Achninistrator TU= Te1nporary use pennit P/U =Requires conditional use pennit on site of conditional use -=Not Pern1itted Residential Group Residential Public and Semipublic Community and Human Service Facilities Day Care, General Helipmis Maintenance & Service Facilities Public Safety Facilities HB -711- IG PC p ZA PC ZA p Additional IL Provisions PC (I) (A)(L) p (K) ZA PC (N) ZA p Item 8. -496 HB -535-Item 10. - 213 Religious Assembly ZA ZA Schools, Public or Private L-6 L-6 Utilities, Major PC PC Utilities, Minor L-7 L-7 (0) Commercial Uses (D)(L) Ambulance Services ZA ZA Animal Sales and Services Animal Boarding ZA ZA Animal Hospitals ZA ZA Artists' Studios p p Banks and Savings and Loans L-1 L-1 Building Materials and Services p p Catering Services -p Commercial Filming ZA ZA Commercial Recreation and Entertainment L-2 L-2 Communication Facilities L-12 L-12 Eating & Drinking Establishments L-3 L-3 w/Live Entertainment ZA ZA (R)(T) Food & Beverage Sales ZA ZA Hospitals and Medical Clinics -PC Laboratories p p Maintenance & Repair Services p p Marine Sales and Services p p Nurseries p p Offices, Business & Professional L-1 L-1 (G) Personal Enrichment L-9 L-9 (T) Personal Services L-1 L-1 Quasi-Residential PC PC (J) Research & Development Services p p Sex-Oriented Businesses (regulated by Ch. 5.70) L-11 L-11 Sex-Oriented Businesses (regulated by Ch. 5 .60) PC PC (Q) Swap Meets, Indoor/Flea Markets PC PC (P) Vehicle/Equipment Sales & Services Service Stations L-4 L-4 Vehicle/Equipment Repair p p Vehicle/Equipment Sales/Rentals L-5 L-5 Item 8. -497 HB -712-HB -536-Item 10. - 214 Vehicle Storage p ZA (H) Visitor Accommodations ZA ZA Warehouse and Sales Outlets L-8 L-8 Industrial (See Chapter 204) (B)(L)(M) Industry, Custom p p Industry, General p p Industry, Limited p p Industry, R & D p p Wholesaling, Distribution & Storage p p Accessory Uses Accessory Uses and Structures P/U P/U (C) Temporary Uses Commercial Filming, Limited p p (S) Real Estate Sales p p Trade Fairs p p (E) Nonconforming Uses (F) IG and IL Districts: Additional Provisions L-1 Only allowed upon approval of a conditional use pennit by the Zoning Administrator for a mixed use project, subject to the following requirements: A. Minimum site area: three acres. B. Maximum commercial space: 35% of the gross floor area and 50% of the ground floor area of buildings fronting on an arterial highway. C. Phased development: 25% of the initial phase must be designed for industrial occupancy. For projects over 500,000 square feet, the initial phase must include five percent of the total amount of industrial space or 50,000 square feet of industrial space, whichever is greater. L-2 Allowed upon approval of a conditional use permit by the Zoning Administrator when designed and oriented for principal use by employees of the surrounding industrial development or when designed for general public use, after considering vehicular access and parking requirements. L-3 Allowed upon approval of a conditional use pennit by the Zoning Administrator when in a freestanding structure or as a secondary use in a building provided that no more than 20% of the floor area is occupied by such a use. L-4 Only stations offering services primarily oriented to businesses located in an I District are allowed with a conditional use permit by the Planning Commission. L-5 No new or used automobile, truck or motorcycle retail sales are permitted. L-6 Only schools offering higher education curriculums are allowed with conditional use permit approval by HB -713-Item 8. -498 HB -537-Item 10. - 215 the Planning Commission. No day care, elementary or secondary schools are pem1itted. L-7 Recycling operations as an accessory use are permitted if more than 150 feet from R districts; recycling operations as an accessory use less than 150 feet from R districts or recycling operations as a primary use are allowed upon approval of a conditional use pennit by the Zoning Administrator. See Section 230.44, Recycling Operations. L-8 Allowed upon conditional use pe1mit approval by the Planning Commission when a single building with a minimum area of 100,000 square feet is proposed on a site fronting an arterial. The primary tenant shall occupy a minimum 95% of the floor area and the remaining 5% may be occupied by secondary tenants. L-9 Permitted if the space is 5,000 square feet or less; allowed by Neighborhood Notification pursuant to Chapter 241 ifthe space is over 5,000 square feet. L-10 Reserved. L-11 Allowed subject to the following requirements: A. A proposed sex-oriented business shall be at least 500 feet from any residential use, school, park and recreational facility, or any building used for religious assembly (collectively referred to as a "sensitive use") and at least 750 feet from another sex-oriented business. For purposes of these requirements, all distances shall be measured from the lot line of the proposed sex-oriented business to the lot line of the sensitive use or the other sex-oriented business. The term "residential use" means any property zoned RL, RM, RMH, RH, RMP, and any properties with equivalent designations under any specific plan. To determine such distances the applicant shall submit for review a straight line drawing depicting the distances from the lot line of the parcel ofland on which the sex-oriented business is proposed which includes all the proposed parking and: 1. The lot line of any other sex-oriented business within 750 feet of the lot line of the proposed sex-oriented business; and 2. The lot line of any building used for religious assembly, school, or park and recreational facility within 500 feet of the lot line of the proposed sex-oriented business; and 3. The lot line of any parcel of land zoned RL, RM, RMH, RH, and RMP and any parcels of land with equivalent designations under any specific plans within 500 feet of the lot line of the proposed sex-oriented business. B. The front fa9ade of the building, including the entrance and signage, shall not be visible from any major, primary or secondary arterial street as designated by the circulation element of the General Plan adopted May 1996, with the exception of Argosy Drive. C. Prior to or concurrently with applying for a building permit and/or a certificate of occupancy for the building, the applicant shall submit application for Community Development Department staff review of a sex-oriented business zoning pennit with the drawing described in subsection A, a technical site plan, floor plans and building elevations, and application fee. Within 10 days of submittal, the director shall determine ifthe application is complete. If the application is deemed incomplete, the applicant may resubmit a completed application within 10 days. Within 30 days of receipt of a completed application, the director shall detennine if the application complies with the applicable development and perfommnce standards of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. Said standards include but are not limited to the following: 1. Chapter 203, Definitions; Chapter 212, Industrial Districts; Chapter 230, Site Standards; Chapter 231, Off-Street Parking and Loading Provisions; Chapter 232, Landscape Improvements; and Chapter 236, Nonconforming Uses and Strnctures. 2. Section 233.0S(B), Signs. Signage shall conform to the standards of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance except a. Such signs shall contain no suggestive or graphic language, photographs, silhouettes, Item 8. -499 HB -714-HB -538-Item 10. - 216 drawings, statues, monuments, sign shapes or sign projections, or other graphic representations, whether clothed or unclothed, including without limitation representations that depict "specified anatomical areas" or "specified sexual activities"; and b. Only the smallest of the signs permitted under Section 233.0S(B) shall be visible from any major, primary or secondary arterial street, such streets shall be those designated in the circulation element of the General Plan adopted May 1996, with the exception of Argosy Drive. 3. Compliance with Huntington Beach Municipal Code Chapter .?.,.7..Q. D. The director shall grant or deny the application for a sex-oriented business zoning permit for a sex- oriented business. There shall be no administrative appeal from the granting or denial of a permit application thereby permitting the applicant to obtain prompt judicial review. E. Ten working days prior to submittal of an application for a sex-oriented business zoning permit for staff review, the applicant shall: (1) cause notice of the application to be printed in a newspaper of general circulation; and (2) give mailed notice of the application to property owners within 1,000 feet of the proposed location of the sex-oriented business; and the City of Huntington Beach, Department of Community Development by first class mail. The notice of application shall include the following: 1. Name of applicant; 2. Location of proposed sex-oriented business, including street address (if known) and/or lot and tract number; 3. Nature of the sex-oriented business, including maximum height and square footage of the proposed development; 4. The City Hall telephone number for the Department of Community Development to call for viewing plans; 5. The date by which any comments must be received in writing by the Department of Community Development. This date shall be 10 working days from staff review submittal; and 6. 111e address of the Department of Community Development. F. A sex-oriented business may not apply for a variance pursuant to Chapter 241 nor a special sign pe1111it pursuant to Chapter 233. G. A sex-oriented business zoning permit shall become null and void one year after its date of approval unless: 1. Construction has commenced or a certificate of occupancy has been issued, whichever comes first; or 2. The use is established. H. The validity of a sex-oriented business zoning permit shall not be affected by changes in ownership or proprietorship provided that the new owner or proprietor promptly notifies the director of the transfer. I. A sex-oriented business zoning pennit shall lapse if the exercise of rights granted by it is discontinued for 12 consecutive months. L-12 For wireless communication facilities see Section 230.96, Wireless Communication Facilities. All other communication facilities pe1mitted. (A) Repealed. (B) A conditional use pe1111it from the Zoning Administrator is required for any new use or enlargement of an existing use, or exterior alterations and additions for an existing use located within 15 0 feet of an R district. The director may waive this requirement ifthere is no substantial change in the character of the use which would affect adjacent residential property in an R District. HB -715-Item 8. -500 HB -539-Item 10. - 217 (C) Accessory office uses incidental to a primary industrial use are limited to 10% of the floor area of the primary industrial use. (D) Adjunct office and commercial space, not to exceed 25% of the floor area of the primary industrial use, is allowed with a conditional use permit from the Zoning Administrator, provided that it is intended primarily to serve employees of the industrial use, no exterior signs advertise the adjunct use, the adjunct use is physically separated from the primary industrial use, any retail sales are limited to goods manufactured on-site, and the primary industrial fronts on an arterial. (E) See Section 241.22, Temporary Use Pem1its. (F) See Chapter 236, Nonconfom1ing Uses and Structures. (G) Medical/dental offices, insurance brokerage offices, and real estate brokerage offices, except for on- site leasing offices, are not permitted in any I District. Administrative, management, regional or headquarters offices for any pennitted industrial use, which are not intended to serve the public, require a conditional use permit from the Zoning Administrator to occupy more than 10% of the total amount of space on the site of the industrial use. (H) Automobile dismantling, storage and/or impound yards may be pennitted subject to the approval of a conditional use permit by the Planning Commission and the following criteria: ( 1) The site shall not be located within 660 feet of an R district. (2) All special metal cutting and compacting equipment shall be completely screened from view. (3) Storage yards shall be enclosed by a solid six-inch concrete block or masonry wall not less than six feet in height and set back a minimum 10 feet from abutting streets with the entire setback area permanently landscaped and maintained. (4) Items stacked in the storage yard shall not exceed the height of the screening walls or be visible from adjacent public streets. (I) Limited to facilities serving workers employed on-site. (J) Limited to single room occupancy uses. (See Section 230.46.) (K) Limited to emergency shelters. (See Section 230.52, Emergency Shelters.) (L) Development of vacant land and/or additions of 10,000 square feet or more in floor area; or additions equal to or greater than 50% of the existing building's floor area; or additions to buildings on sites located within 300 feet of a residential zone or use for a pennitted use requires approval of a conditional use permit from the Zoning Administrator. The Community Development Director may refer any proposed addition to the Zoning Administrator if the proposed addition has the potential to impact residents or tenants in the vicinity (e.g., increased noise, traffic). (M) Major outdoor operations require conditional use permit approval by the Planning Commission. Major outside operations include storage yards and uses utilizing more than one-third of the site for outdoor operation. (N) See Section 230.40, Helicopter Takeoff and Landing Areas. (0) See Section 230.44, Recycling Operations. (P) See Section 230.50, Indoor Swap Meets/Flea Markets. (Q) See L-11 (A) relating to locational restrictions. (R) Non-amplified live entertainment greater than 300 feet from a residential zone or use shall be pennitted without a conditional use permit. (S) Subject to approval by the Police Depmtment, Public Works Department, and Fire Department and the Community Development Director. (T) Neighborhood Notification requirements when no entitlement required pursuant to Chapter 241. Item 8. -501 HB -716-HB -540-Item 10. - 218 (3254-10/94, 3378-2/98, 3523-2/02, 3568-9/02, 3703-3/05, 3708-6/05, 3724-02/06, 3788-12/07, 3843- 11/09, 3860-2/10, 4039-12/14, 4092-10/16) View the mobile version. 1-!B -717-Item 8. -502 HB -541-Item 10. - 219 Exhibit 4 Itetn 8. -503 HB -718-HB -542-Item 10. - 220 D Location: Citywide CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 14-002/ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT N0.14-001 (GENERAL PLAN UPDATE) June 13, 2017 SUMMARY D Proposed Project: The draft General Plan Update is the fundamental policy document of the City of Huntington Beach and establishes an overall development capacity for the City and serves as a policy guide for determining the appropriate physical development and character of Huntington Beach over an approximate 25-year planning horizon (to 2040). It provides the framework for management and utilization of the City's physical and economic resources. By providing a basis for rational decision-making, the draft General Plan Update will guide civic decisions regarding land use, the design and/or character of buildings and open spaces, the conservation of existing housing and the provision of new dwelling units, the provision of supp01iing infrastrncture and public services, the protection of environmental resources, the allocation of fiscal resources, and the protection of residents from natural and human-caused hazards. The City is updating its General Plan to ensure that the plan remains a useful tool, keeps pace with change, and provides workable solutions to current and future issues. The General Plan Update will provide a comprehensive policy framework that reflects growth, resource protection priorities, and recent state legislation, providing a blueprint for future development and resource conservation in Huntington Beach. The General Plan expresses the City's goals and miiculates the City's intentions with respect to the rights and expectations of the general public, property owners, community interest groups, prospective investors, and business interests. State Law Requirements Each city and county in California is required to adopt a general plan and update the plan at regular intervals. Sections 65300-65404 and 65590-65590.l of the California Government Code establish the requirements for the minimum contents of the general plan and rnles for adoption and subsequent amendments. Together, these portions of state law and General Plan Guidelines that are prepared and maintained by the California Governor's Office of Plam1ing and Research establish the legal framework for the City of Huntington Beach General Plan Update. Under state law, each General Plan must contain at minimum the following seven elements: Land Use, Circulation, Housing, Noise, Open Space, Conservation, and Safety. A General Plan may also contain optional elements to address and emphasize other subjects of local importance. Existing General Plan The City's current General Plan was last comprehensively updated in 1996. The cun-ent General Plan contains 16 elements within four chapters. The table below summarizes the various elements of the existing General Plan, where the date of the most comprehensive update is shown and the date of the most recent minor amendment, if any, also is provided in parentheses. HB -719-Item 8. -504 HB -543-Item 10. - 221 Existing General Plan Elements Most Recent Update Community Development Chapter Land Use Element 1996, (amended 2013) Urban Design Element 1996 Historic and Cultural Resources Element 2015 Economic Development Element 1996 Growth Management Element 2002, (amended 2004) Housing Element 2013 Infrastructure and Community Services Chapter Circulation Element 2013 Public Facilities and Public Services Element 1996, (amended 2002) Recreation and Community Services 1996, (amended 2012) Element Utilities Element Natural Resources Chapter Environmental Resources/Conservation Element Air Quality Element Coastal Element Hazards Chapter Environmental Hazards Element Noise Element Hazardous Materials Element 1996, (amended 2010) 1996, (amended 2004) 1996 2001, (amended 2011) 1996, (amended 2009) 1996 1996 Draft General Plan Update The draft General Plan Update incorporates components of the 1996 General Plan that are still applicable today, while reducing the number of optional elements and proposing a sh·eamlined approach to the goals and policies. The General Plan Update also establishes a new Research and Technology (RT) land use designation within existing Industrially designated areas, which highlights and prioritizes the city's commitment to job growth and sustained economic growth and vitality. While the General Plan Update does not change any of the city's existing residential designations or propose new areas of residential land, it allows for continued residential growth within the city's current residential areas and established densities of those areas. The General Plan Update does not propose additional Specific Plans or changes to the maximum permitted density and intensity established by each adopted Specific Plan within the City. 111e General Plan Update also functions as a plan for the management of resources and infrastructure to accommodate projected growth over a 25-year period. General Plan Update Elements The General Plan Update is comprised of the following six elements: PC Study Session -06/13/17 Ite1n 8. -505 Proposed General Plan Update Elements Land Use Element Circulation Element Environmental Resources and Conservation Natural and Environmental Hazards Noise Infrastructure and Public Services -2 - HB -720- (l 7srl 9 General Plan Update SS) HB -544-Item 10. - 222 The Historic and Cultural Resources, Housing, and Coastal Elements are not a part of this comprehensive General Plan Update. Below is a brief description of each element. Land Use Element The Land Use Element is a required element pursuant to state plaiming law and guides future development and designates appropriate locations for different land uses including open spaces, parks, residences, commercial uses, industry, schools, and other public and community-serving uses. The Land Use Element establishes standards for residential density and nonresidential building intensity for lands within the plam1ing area. The element also establishes the City's long-tem1 community design and economic development goals related to beach city culture and identity, community form, neighborhoods and districts, economic trends, and job development and retention strategies. Development Capacity The Land Use Element establishes a development capacity for the City over a 25-year period (to 2040). The General Plan Update accommodates an additional 7 ,228 dwelling units and 5,384,920 square feet of non-residential uses over 2014 conditions. Research and Technology Land Use Designation To support economic development goals to attract new incubator and technology-oriented uses, a Research and Technology (RT) land use designation within the Northwest Industrial area and the Gothard Street corridor is proposed to accommodate these types of future uses. The Research and Technology designation would provide a flexible platfom1 for both industrial and commercial uses that do not fit into the city's historically commercial or industrial areas. Many new business types require this flexibility as they may need both commercial and industrial components to conduct business. When assessing Huntington Beach's location, employment, and land use potential, technology manufacturing and technology services industries present high potential for growth. The RT designation would provide for a wide variety of nonresidential mixed-use development and encourage both employment uses and commercial uses designed to accommodate employees. Uses may include clean and green maimfacturing and industrial uses (e.g., medical devices, clean air technology), research and development uses, technology, warehousing, business parks, professional offices, limited eating and drinking establishments that have an industrial component (e.g., brewery), and similar neighborhood commercial uses. Additionally, technology fim1s will demand newer or refurbished multi-tenant buildings that offer modem, high speed and high bandwidth infrastmcture. Therefore, the Land Use Element identifies goals and policies that will focus on developing a strong inventory of adequately improved and competitive industrial buildings within these area that provide the resources and technological capacity desired by businesses in this industry. Circulation Element The Circulation Element is a required element of the General Plan pursuant to state planning law and defines the transp01iation network and describes how people move throughout the platming area, including the streets, railways, transit routes, bicycle paths, and sidewalks. The transpmiation network is a major detenninant of development form and land use. Factors such as, but not limited to, traffic patterns and congestion, access to transit, and ease and safety of walking and biking may determine where people choose to live, work, and visit. The Circulation PC Study Session -06/13/17 - 3 -(l 7srl9 General Plan Update SS) HB -721-Item 8. -506 HB -545-Item 10. - 223 Element was comprehensively updated in 2013. As such, changes to the Circulation Element are minimal consisting of mostly updating figures and exhibits and addressing new components of state law. Environmental Resources and Conservation Element The Environmental Resources and Conservation Element satisfies the Open Space and Conservation Element requirements of state planning law and is a required element of the General Plan. The Environmental Resources and Conservation Element describes the conservation, development, and use of natural resources (including open space), as well as parks and recreation oppmtunities, in Huntington Beach. This element also addresses key issues related to enviromnental resources and conservation, including biological resource areas, energy and water conservation, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and coastal resources. Natural and Environmental Hazards Element The Natural and Environmental Hazards Element satisfies the Safety Element requirements of state planning Jaw, which is a mandated component of the General Plan. The Natural and Environmental Hazards Element identifies areas prone to natural hazards and potentially hazardous conditions including ground shaking and surface mpture from earthquakes; ground failure; tsunami, seiche, and dam failure; slope instability leading to mudslides and landslides; subsidence, liquefaction, and other geologic hazards; flooding; urban fires; hazardous materials; and evacuation routes. Noise Element The Noise Element is a required General Plan element and describes the ex1stmg noise environment in Huntington Beach, identifies noise sources and problems affecting community safety and comfort, and establishes policies and programs that limit community exposure to excessive noise levels. The Noise Element sets standards for acceptable noise levels by various land uses and provides guidance for how to balance the noise created by an active and economically healthy community with the community's desire for peace and quiet. Public Services and Infrastructure Element The Public Services and Infrastructure Element is an optional element that describes the water delivery system, wastewater collection and treatment system, stormwater and urban mnoff, solid waste disposal, electricity, communications, and infrastructure finance. This element also identifies plans for preparing for health and safety hazards, including police protection, fire protection, marine safety, emergency response and preparedness, and airport safety. Each element is organized into the following sections: • Introduction and Purpose: This section describes the purpose and scope of the element, and specifies the relationship of the element to other elements in the General Plan. • Plan: This section provides impmiant background infonnation and key trends that provide a strategic basis for city policy. Many of the elements illustrate various oppmtunities, constraints, classifications, policies, and standards in either graphic or tabular form. For example, the Land Use Element contains a Land Use Map and a Land Use Plan that identify and describe the locations of future uses by type, density, and intensity. • Issues, Goals, and Policies: This section identifies the most important community issues related to the element topic. For each issue, goals are identified to provide direction by PC Study Session -06/13/17 -4 -(l 7srl9 General Plan Update SS) Item 8. -507 HB -722-HB -546-Item 10. - 224 stating a desired future end state. Policies are identified as guides for the City Council, Planning Commission, and City staff when reviewing development proposals and making other decisions that affect future development and conservation. Policies represent a commitment by the City to pursue a particular course of action, or to take action in the future consistent with the direction stated in the related goal. Policies are presented as written statements, tables, diagrams, and maps. All of these components must be considered together when making planning decisions. • Implementation Programs: Implementation Programs describe how the City will implement identified goals and policies. Unless othe1wise stated, all policies are to be implemented on an as-appropriate or as-feasible basis, considering surrounding physical and environmental context and financial resources. The implementation programs are located in Chapter VIII, Implementation of the General Plan Update. Elements Not Included in General Plan Update • Housing Element: The Housing Element is a required element of the General Plan and serves as a policy guide to address the housing needs of the residents of Huntington Beach. The element outlines housing needs, barriers or constraints to providing housing, and actions proposed to address these concerns over an eight-year period. The most recent Housing Element was adopted in 2013 and anticipates housing needs within Huntington Beach from 2013 through 2021. The Housing Element is not a pati of the General Plan Update as it is on a separate schedule pursuant to state housing element law. • Coastal Element: The Coastal Element addresses the requirements of the California Coastal Act within the p01iions of Huntington Beach that are located within the Coastal Zone. Goals and policies in this element guide civic decisions regarding growth, development, enhancement, and preservation of coastal resources. This element will be updated after adoption of the General Plan Update and is subject to approval by the California Coastal Commission. • Historic and Cultural Resources Element: This element was recently comprehensively updated in 2015 and, as such, is not considered a pati of the General Plan Update. However, upon adoption of the General Plan Update, it will be refonnatted to be consistent with the format of the General Plan Update. D Background: As mentioned, the City's existing General Plan consists of 16 elements and was last comprehensively updated in 1996. In October 2013, the City Council approved a contract and budget to retain PMC, Inc., now Michael Baker International, to assist the City with the General Plan Update. In March 2015, the City Council directed staff to streamline the General Plan Update including reducing the amount of optional elements and condensing the overall General Plan to the extent feasible while still complying with state law (Attachment No. 3). In July 2016, the General Plan Update project team presented goals and policies that were reviewed by the General Plan Adviso1y Committee (GP AC) and land use alternatives for several opp01iunity areas identified in the economic conditions and market trends report prepared for the General Plan Update to the City Council. The City Council recommended minimal land use map changes (Attachment No. 4). TI1e land use map changes directed by the City Council are limited to properties along the Gothard corridor and within the N01thwest Industrial area and reflected in the proposed Research and Technology designation on the draft General Plan Map. PC Study Session -06/13/17 - 5 -(l 7srl 9 General Plan Update SS) HB -723-Item 8. -508 HB -547-Item 10. - 225 0 CEQA: The draft Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR), which analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated with the General Plan Update, is currently available for a 45- day public review and comment period through July 7, 2017. A public comment meeting will be held on June 7, 2017, to receive comments from the public on the EIR. A Planning Commission study session on the draft EIR will be held on June 27, 2017. The draft EIR studied the following topical impact sections as required by CEQA: • Air Quality • Land Use and Plam1ing • Aesthetics • Noise • Biological Resources • Cultural Resources • Geology, Soils and Mineral Resources • Greenhouse Gas Emissions • Hazards and Hazardous Materials • Hydrology and Water Quality • • • • • Population, Housing and Employment Public Services Recreation Transportation and Traffic Utilities and Services Systems The EIR also presents alternatives to the proposed project that could avoid or reduce the severity of impacts described in the issue areas above. Following the comment period, the City will prepare a draft final EIR, which includes responses to all comments received during the comment period that relate to the analysis in the EIR. A copy of the Draft Program EIR is available at the following locations: • City of Huntington Beach Community Development Department, City Hall -3rd floor, 2000 Main Street, H1mtington Beach, California, 92648; • City of Huntington Beach Clerk's Office, City Hall -2nd floor, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648; • Central Library, 7111 Talbert Avenue, Huntington Beach, CA 92647; • The project website: http://www.hbthenextwave.org • The City's website: http://www.huntingtonbeachca.gov/govemment/depaiiments/planning/major/general-plan- update.cfrn 0 Planning Issues: The purpose of this Planning Commission study session is to present an overview of the draft General Plan Update and obtain feedback on the topics to be discussed for upcoming study sessions on the project. 0 Project Schedule: Below is a schedule of upcoming meetings related to the General Plan Update. Commission Study Session (EIR Plannin Commission Study Session (GPU) Planning Commission Study Session (GPU) Plalllin Commission Public Hearing City Council Study Session (tentative) Planning Commission Public Hearing #2 (if needed) City Council Public Hearing (tentative) All meetings to be held in the City Council Chambers PC Study Session-06/13/17 - 6 - June 27, 2017 July 11, 2017 July 25, 2017 August 15, 2017 August 21, 2017 August 22, 2017 Se tember 18, 2017 Item 8. -509 HB -724- 4:00P.M. 7:00P.M. 6:00P.M. (17srl9 General Plan Update SS) HB -548-Item 10. - 226 D Attachments: 1. Draft General Plan Update -not attached; refer to website: http://www.huntingtonbeachca.gov/govemment/departments/plam1ing/major/general-plan- update.cfm 2. Draft Environmental Impact Report -not attached; refer to website: http://wwvi.huntingtonbeachca.gov/govemment/depaitments/planning/111ajor/general-plan- update.cfm 3. March 2015 City Council General Plan Update str·eamline action 4. July 2015 City Council policy and land use alternative direction PC Study Session -06/13117 -7 -(17srl9 General Plan Update SS) HB -725-Item 8. -510 HB -549-Item 10. - 227 Exhibit 5 Item 8. -511 HB -726-HB -550-Item 10. - 228 -Voice of San Diego -http://www.voiceofsandiego.org - San Diego Is Awash in Craft Beer -and Its Sticky, Smelly Byproduct Posted By Klnsee Morlan On April 28, 2017@ 7:00 am In ~Beer PollcyJFood,Must Reads [No Comments One of the challenges of opening up a new craft brewery is figuring out what to do with plies of gunk every new batch of beer leaves behind. Spent grain is basically the malted barley residue left behind ln the brewing process. It's thick, like mushy oatmeal, and brewers produce so much of it they can't just throw It in dumpsters. "How do you get rid of your spent grains? I'm looklng to unload at least a 1,000 pounds a week. Any ideas? I'm new." Cameron Pryor; cofounder of the new California Wild Ales fl] brewery in Sorrento Valley, posted his question in a craft beer group on Facebook last month. It's a query that comes 1m often [llamong those opening new breweries across San Diego County. Pryor did eventually hook up with a local farmer. Most San Diego breweries have ranchers pick UQ their spent grain t3J for free. They use it to feed their animals. Rawley Macias said he hadn't yet figured out what to do with his spent grain when he opened the doors to his Ro11leur Brewing Companx C41 in Carlsbad a month ago. He contacted several farmers, but he said he kept hearing that their livestock feed needs were met, We Stand Up for You. Will You Stand Up for Us? I would like to donate $ [~ __ ; ·Per Month <' Per Year One Time _E_£.~_ What benefits do VOSD members ggE [SJ "The skids have been greased and breweries had been working on these relationships with farmers for a long time," Macias said. "But for new brewers, a lot of farmers want you to be making a lot of grain. They also want you to be brewing a few times a week and stay on that schedule so the pickups can be consistent, but it's hard as a new brewery because you don't have the demand yet." Without finding a farmer, Macias opened his brewery. Huge barrels of spent graln started piling up. The smell of the rotting beer byproduct started becoming a pungent problem -his landlord and customers complalned. "I had like 16 trash cans of spent grain in my brewery just stinking up the place," he said. Eventually, Macias connected with a pig farmer from Valley Center. His spent grain is now picked up soon after it's produced. He said he's heard from plenty of other breweries in the region with the same spent grain problem on their hands. His next-door neighbor, in fact, Wiseg_u_y Brewing__kg [6l., had a backlog of spent grain until Macias hooked them up with the pig farmer. Tom Gent, who owns Wisegyy Brewino Co l7J. with his son, said he thinks as more breweries open in Q__@glon that already has about 140 [SJ, it'll get harder and harder to find folks who want all the spent grain. "It's going to be a larger problem on a bigger scale as mlcrobreweries become more and more popular," he said. HB -727-Item 8. -512 HB -551-Item 10. - 229 [9] Photo by Kinsee Morlan Tom Gent is co-owner of Wiseguy Brewing Co. Eric Larson, executive director of the San Diego County Farm Bureau, said he's already heard from several farmers who say they turn new breweries away. He said while there are a lot of farms In the county, there aren't many farms filled with animals. "We have a relatively small amount of llvestock because land is expensive here and livestock tends to be raised on inexpensive land," he said. "So we're producing a lot of beer here, but not enough animals to eat the spent grain." Item 8. -513 HB -728-HB -552-Item 10. - 230 A few, small crafty San Diego companies have come up with creative things to do with spent grain. A homebrewing couple uses their SRent grain to make soag_ [lOJ. David Crane makes dog treats [ll] w!th spent grain from local breweries. And a new startup company called UQcycle & ComRanv. t 12J uses spent grain from Ballast Point as one of its main ingredients for fertmzer. "We just launched but we are already scaling up," said Upcycle's director of operations James Griffin. "So we are working with multiple breweries, but we're still In negotiation stages." Councilman Chris Cate, whose district is home to most of the city of San D!ego's breweries [l3J, has his eye on the spent grain problem. He said his office has been working on coming up with a more comprehensive solution, at least for breweries within city limits. Cate said his office is partnering with the Center for Sustainable Energy and UC San Diego. The coalition ls working to secure grant funding and eventually build an anaerobic digester [l4J at the UCSD campus that could turn the spent grain from city breweries Into renewable energy. Essentially, waste creates methane gas, and that gas can be used to Qower [lSJ the very same breweries that supplied the spent graln. "We'll be powering beer with beer," Cate said. He said his office has heard from breweries having a hard time figuring out what to do with spent grain, but there's another issue -too many breweries are relying on far-away farmers, even some outside the county, to pick up the beer waste. Those long-distance trips don't align well with the carbon-cuttlng_goals Jn the city's Climate Action plan [l6J. Cate's office has given a few presentations to the San Diego Brewers Guild to let local brewers know about the future plans for spent grain, and to talk about other sustalnable practices, like onsite composting, that breweries can do with the waste. He said they're also getting ready to survey Sao Diego brewers to get a better Idea of the amount of spent grain being produced. "We want to come up with a creative solution to address the Cllmate Action Plan and address the problem our brewers are having when it comes to offloading spent grain," Cate said. Article printed from Volce of San Diego: http://www.voiceofsandiego.org URL to article: http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/food/san-diegos-craft-beer-obsession-gross-side-effect-thats-getting-harder-contain/ URLs in this post: (1] Callforola Wild Ales: http:/ /www.californiawildales.com/ [2] comes up often : https:/ /www.reddit.com/r /farming/ comments/2zqdkr /local_brewery _looking_for_local_san_diego_farm_to/ [3) ranchers pick up their spent grain: http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/food/why-focal-brewers-and-farmers-hope-the-fda-wont-go-against- the-grain/ [4] Rouleur Brewing Company: http://rouleurbrewing.com/ [5] What benefits do VOSD members get?: http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/about-us/members/membership-levels/ (6) Wiseguy Brewing Co: https://www.facebook.com/wiseguybrewingco/ [7] Wiseguy Brewing Co: http://wlseguybrewing.com/ [8] a region that already has about 140: https://www.sandiego.org/articles/breweries/san-diego-breweries.aspx [9] Image: http:/ /www.voiceofsandiego.org/wp-content/uploads/2017 /04 / spentgrain_tom-e1493329799661.jpg [10] spent grain to make soap: http://www.beercansoap.com/journey [11) makes dog treats: http://doggiebeerbones.com/ [12] Upcycle & Company: https://www.upcycleandcompany.com/ [13] home to most of the city of San Diego's breweries: http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/arts/culture-report-chris-cates-expanding-beer-belt/ (14] anaerobic digester: https://www.americanbiogascouncil.org/biogas_what.asp [15] gas can be used to power: http:/ /www.sandiegouniontribune.com/military/sdut-electric-independence-2012jul02-story.htrnl [16) carbon-cutting goals in the city's Climate Action Plan: http:/ /www.voiceofsandiego.org/category/climate-action-plan/ Copyright© 2015 Voice of San D!ego. All rights reserved. HB -729-Item8.-514 HB -553-Item 10. - 231 Exhibit 6 Item 8. -515 HB -730-HB -554-Item 10. - 232 A laboratory assessment of the impact of brewery wastewater discharge on sulfide and methane production in a sewer. Sudarjanto G', Sharma KR, Gutierrez 0, Yuan Z. ----- Author information Abstract The impact of brewery wastewater discharge on sulfide and methane production in a sewer was assessed. Experiments were carried out on laboratory scale sewer reactors consisting of both an experimental and a control reactor. The control reactor was intermittently fed with real fresh sewage while the experimental reactor was fed with a mixture of brewery and domestic wastewater at two different proportions (10 and 25% v/v). 10% v/v discharge of brewery wastewater increased the H2S and CH4 production rates in the sewer reactor by 40% and 30%, respectively. When the brewery wastewater fraction was increased to 25% v/v, the H2S production rate of the experimental reactor decreased to the level of the control reactor. In contrast, the CH4 production rate maintained at a level that was 30% higher than that in the control reactor. These results indicate that the discharge of brewery wastewater into sewers can give negative impacts in relation to odour and corrosion management of the systems and will increase the greenhouse gas emissions from sewers. The study also reveals that the impact of trade waste on the biological reactions in sewers is complex, and requires careful experimental assessment in each case. HB -731-Item 8. -516 HB -555-Item 10. - 233 Exhibit 7 Item 8. -517 HB -732-HB -556-Item 10. - 234 Ur1 Pt'1::vfou:;; Ne,>;\ rc11cdn ZONING CODE Title 20 ZONING CODE-GENERAL PROVISIONS ChaRter 204 USE CLASSIFICATIONS 204.12 Industrial Use Classifications A. Industry, Custom. Establishments primarily engaged in on-site production of goods by hand manufacturing involving the use of hand tools and small-scale equipment. Small-Scale. Includes mechanical equipment not exceeding two horsepower or a single kiln not exceeding eight kilowatts and the incidental direct sale to consumers of only those goods produced on-site. Typical uses include ceramic studios, candle-making shops, and custom jewelry manufacture. B. Industry, General. Manufacturing of products, primarily from extracted or raw materials, or bulk storage and handling of such products and materials. Uses in this classification typically involve a high incidence of truck or rail traffic, and/or outdoor storage of products, materials, equipment, or bulk fuel. This classification includes chemical manufacture or processing, food processing and packaging, laundry and dry cleaning plants, auto dismantling within an enclosed building, stonework and concrete products manufacture (excluding concrete ready-mix plants), small animal production and processing within an enclosed building, and power generation. C. Industry, Limited. Manufacturing of finished parts or products, primarily from previously prepared materials; and provision of industrial services, both within an enclosed building. This classification in- cludes processing, fabiication, assembly, treatment, and packaging, but excludes basic industrial processing from raw materials and Vehicle/Equipment Services, but does allow food processing for human consumption. D. Industry, Research and Development. Establishments primaiily engaged in the research, development, and controlled production of high-technology electronic, industrial or scientific products or commodities for sale, but prohibits uses that may be objectionable in the opinion of the director, by reason of production of offensive odor, dust, noise, vibration, or in the opinion of the Fire Chief by reason of storage of hazardous materials. Uses include aerospace and biotechnology firms, and non-toxic computer component manufacturers. 1. This classification also includes assembly, testing and repair of components, devices, equipment, systems, parts and components such as but not limited to the following: coils, tubes, semi-conductors; communication, navigation, guidance and control equipment; data processing equipment; filing and labeling machinery; glass edging and silvering equipment; graphics and art equipment; metering equipment; optical devices and equipment; photographic equipment; radar, infrared and ultraviolet equipment; radio and television equipment. 2. This classification also includes the manufacture of components, devices, equipment, parts and systems which includes assembly, fabricating, plating and processing, testing and repair, such as but not limited to the following: machine and metal fabricating shops, model and spray painting shops, environmental test, including vibration analysis, cryogenics, and related functions, plating and processing shops, nuclear and radioisotope. 3. This classification also includes research and development laboratories including biochemical and chemical development facilities for national welfare on land, sea, or air; and facilities for film and photography, metallurgy; phannaceutical, and medical and x-ray research. E. Wholesaling, Distribution and Storage. Storage and distribution facilities without sales to the public on-site or direct public access except for recycling facilities and public storage in a small individual space exclusively and directly accessible to a specific tenant. This classification includes mini-warehouses. (3334- 6/97) HB -733-Item 8. -518 HB -557-Item 10. - 235 View the mobile version. Item 8. -519 HB -734-HB -558-Item 10. - 236 Exhibit 8 I-IB -735-Item 8. -520 HB -559-Item 10. - 237 Guidance Document CHAPTER2 AIR QUALITY ISSUES REGARDING LAND USE Item 8. -521 • LOCAL GOVERNMENT SITING CRITERIA FOR SENSITIVE RECEPTORS • JOB-HOUSING BALANCE • SUGGESTED GOAL, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES/STRATEGIES RELATED TO LAND USE HB -736-HB -560-Item 10. - 238 Guidance Document AIR QUALITY ISSUES REGARDING LAND USE Local government land use authority in planning, zoning, and permitting can be a very effective tool to minimize air pollutant emissions and associated health risks. However, it is important to recognize that traditional assumptions about planning and zoning compatibility to protect the public may not always eliminate adverse health impacts of air pollution. While it is recognized that local governments, to make the best decisions for the benefit of their residents, must weigh and balance multiple issues, demands and concerns, including, but not limited to, the need for housing, existing development and development patterns, environmental responsibilities and more when making land use decisions, some projects being considered by local land use decision-makers may comply with zoning and air pollution control requirements but still result in adverse health impacts on nearby sensitive receptors. These health impacts may result from emissions released at a single site, along a transportation corridor or a combination of co-located air pollution sources in a community. For example, the co-location of residential and commercial zones often minimize transportation-related emissions, but in some situations this mixed land use may also increase health risks if commercial facilities that emit toxic chemicals are over concentrated. While mixed-use zoning offers economic, social, and environmental benefits compared to single-use zoning, this chapter describes certain industrial, commercial and transportation uses that may pose health concerns with residences, schools, and other sensitive sites. This document introduces land use related policies that rely on design and distance parameters to minimize emissions and lower potential health risk. LOCAL GOVERNMENT SITING CONSIDERATIONS FOR SENSITIVE RECEPTORS There is a strong connection between health risk and the proximity of the source of air pollution. Local jurisdictions have the responsibility for determining land use compatibility for sensitive receptors. A sensitive receptor is a person in the population who is particularly susceptible to health effects due to exposure to an air contaminant. The following are land uses (sensitive sites) where sensitive receptors are typically located: • schools, playgrounds and childcare centers • long-term health care facilities • rehabilitation centers • convalescent centers • hospitals • retirement homes • residences Facilities and Operations That Emit Odors and Dust Both the AQMD and local governments receive complaints about dust and offensive odors. Odors and dust are air pollutants that can have negative health impacts. While 2-1 HB -737-Item 8. -522 HB -561-Item 10. - 239 Guidance Document almost any source may emit objectionable odors, some land uses will be more likely to produce odors or dust because of their operation. The types of facilities or operations that are prone to generiite odors, and dust, and other air pollutants can be identified from complaints received by the AQMD (Table 2-1 ). While AQMD records indicate these facilities have the potential to emit odor or dust that may impact sensitive receptors, individual equipment and operations within each source category do not necessarily generate dust or odor. Special care needs to be given to the initial siting and design of operations and facilities listed in Table 2-1. Assessing potential impacts depends on a number of variables such as wind speed and direction, design features of the proposed facility such as stack height, and the physical distance from the source and the sensitive receptors. Local governments should identify both new projects that have a probability of pollution-related complaints and new developments that may be affected by existing upwind sources. Ideally, potential odor and dust emissions from new projects should be identified and evaluated while the project is still in its initial design phase. This early effort could provide an opportunity to change the project design to minimize or eliminate emissions before the facility becomes operational. Potential odor and dust sources that can be identified and mitigated before construction of a project begins will minimize health impacts and enforcement problems. Local governments are advised to contact the AQMD's Office of Engineering and Compliance to determine if complaints have been filed by property owners or occupants in the general vicinity of a proposed project site to help evaluate the potential for dust or odor complaints. Table 2-1 Sources of Odor and Dust Complaints Received by the AQMD Sources of Odors Agriculture (farming and livestock) Chemical Plants Composting Operations Dairies Fiberglass Molding Landfills Refineries Rendering Plants Rail Yards Wastewater Treatment Plant Item 8. -523 Sources of Dust Agricultural (Land Tilling) Asphalt and Cement Plants Auto Body Facilities Construction Activities Diesel EnginesNehicles Composting Operations Fertilizer Operations Fiberglass Molding Furniture Manufacturing -Sawdust Landfills and Transfer Stations Refineries Roofing Operations Rubber Manufacturing Sand and Gravel Operations Sandblasting Silk Screening Wood dust 2-2 HB -738-HB -562-Item 10. - 240 Guidance Document Toxic Air Contaminants Sensitive receptors (and the facilities that house them) in proximity to sources of air pollutants that emit TACs are of particular concern. Exposure to TACs can increase the risk of contracting cancer or result in adverse non-cancer health effects. Non-cancer health risks associated with TAC exposure include birth defects and other reproductive damage, neurological disorders, and damage to the respiratory system. A comprehensive monitoring study of TACs was initiated as part of AQMD's environmental justice program. The Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study (MATES-II) included fixed sites characterizing neighborhood-scale conditions and a complementary microscale study to sample potential localized influences of toxic-emitting sources near residential neighborhoods. Inventories of TACs were utilized in computer simulation models to depict toxic risks for the entire South Coast basin. The MATES-II project represents one of the most comprehensive air toxics monitoring programs ever conducted in a major urban area in the country, and it has been recognized as a model program. Findings from the study revealed the following: • Average cancer risk from ambient measurements in the South Coast basin was found to be 1400 in a million; • Diesel exhaust is responsible for about 70 percent of the total cancer risk from air pollution; • Emissions from mobile sources --including cars and trucks as well as ships, trains and planes --account for about 90 percent of the cancer risk. Emissions from businesses and industry are responsible for the remaining 10 percent; and • The highest cancer risk occurs in south Los Angeles county --including the port area --and along major freeways. In 2005, the AQMD plans to release the results of another intensive one-year study that examined current levels of cancer-causing TACs and the risk they pose to district residents. This study will help gauge the effectiveness of current regulations and serve as a vital tool in helping shape future air quality and environmental justice policies. MATES-Ill will monitor 21 TACs and four other substances at 10 sites across the Los Angeles basin. The AQMD will use mobile monitoring stations to sample at neighborhood sites near toxic emission sources or in areas where community members are concerned about health risks from air pollution. Such neighborhood sites could be near airports, rail yards, warehouses, landfills, high-volume vehicle traffic, or multiple commercial or industrial facilities. Sampling at each neighborhood site lasts for up to two months. The goal of MATES-Ill is to update TAC levels and toxic emission inventories, determine the cancer and non-cancer health risk from air toxics across the district. Also, the study will investigate potential toxic "hot spots" in local communities. The potential impacts of new facilities on sensitive sites will depend on a variety of factors including the amount and toxicity of pollutants emitted, the type of air pollution control equipment at the facility, design features of the facility, the distance from the 2-3 HB -739-Item 8. -524 HB -563-Item 10. - 241 Guidance Document source of emissions to the sensitive receptor, and local meteorology. All these factors should be carefully evaluated when siting a source of air pollution. Typically, the siting process followed by land use agencies to avoid the location of sensitive sites (e.g., residences, health clinics, etc.) near sources of air pollution does not involve the AQMD. The potential for public health impacts remains unchanged when siting sensitive receptors near a pollution source or a pollution source near a sensitive receptor. Therefore, local policies should allow for a thorough evaluation of the air quality impacts for both scenarios. Where possible, CARB recommends a minimum separation between new sensitive land uses and the following eight categories of existing sources (Table 1-1 in CARB's Proposed Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. March 2005, or subsequent versions adopted by CARB): • high-traffic freeways and roads • distribution centers • rail yards • ports • refineries • chrome plating facilities • perchloroethylene dry cleaners • large gasoline stations It is recommended that the AQMD be consulted to obtain facility-specific emissions information and accepted assessment methods for determining relative exposure and health risk for proposed projects. Recent studies have found an increased incidence of adverse effects among those who live near busy roadways; these include increased respiratory disease and increased mortality (Wilhelm, M., et al 2003; Kim, J. et al 2004). These studies found that residential proximity to traffic was associated with increased risk of low birth weight, increased medical visits for asthma and increased respiratory symptoms in children. Studies conducted near freeways in Southern California show that traffic emissions, such as carbon monoxide, ultra-fine particulates, and black carbon (soot) are several times higher next to freeways than the background concentrations. These concentrations fell to lower levels with increasing distance from the roadway, decreasing about 60-80 percent within 100 meters (Zhu, Yifang, et al, 2002). Recent results from the Children's Health Study have shown strong evidence of adverse effects in children exposed to ambient levels of traffic-related pollutants. This study followed children in 12 communities in Southern California from 4th grade through 12th grade (McConnell, K., et al, 2002). Children in communities with high levels of NOx, PM 2 .5 , acid vapors, and elemental carbon showed reduced lung function growth over the study period. Additionally, a higher level of asthma was found in the children that lived nearest to busy roadways. In a report prepared for CARB, researchers concluded that the current levels of ambient air pollution in Southern California are associated with Item 8. -525 2-4 HB -740-HB -564-Item 10. - 242 Guidance Document clinically important chronic health effects that have substantial health and economic impacts (Peters, 2004). The primary authority for siting public schools rests with local school districts which are the designated "lead agencies" for the CEQA environmental analyses. The California Education Code requires public school districts to notify the local planning agency when siting new public schools and the planning agency to determine if the proposed site conforms with the General Plan. If the proposed school is within 500 feet of the edge of a freeway or traffic corridor that has specified minimum average daily traffic counts, the school district is required to determine through specified risk assessment and air dispersion modeling that neither short-term nor long-term exposure poses significant heath risks to pupils. Both the California Education Code section 17213 and the California Public Resources Code section 21151.8 require school districts to consult with the AQMD when preparing the environmental assessment. The AQMD verifies all permitted and non-permitted sources of air pollution that might significantly affect health have been identified and evaluated. Generally, cancer risk will drop off with distance from a ground level pollution source, such as a freeway. Freeways and busy traffic corridors are defined as traffic volume of over 100,000 vehicles per day in urban areas and 50,000 vehicles per day in rural areas (Education Code Section 17312). GARB studies show that air pollution levels can be significantly higher within 500 feet (150 meters) of freeways or busy traffic corridors and then diminish rapidly. Actual concentration of diesel particulate matter will vary at a particular location depending on traffic volume, vehicle mix, prevailing winds and other variables. The decline in the relative concentration of diesel particulate matter as one moves away from the edge of a freeway is illustrated Figure 2-1. These data have been normalized to a receptor located 20 meters from the edge of freeway (i.e., at a distance of 20 m, the receptor is exposed to 100 percent of the diesel particulate matter emissions from the freeway). A downwind distance of 328 feet (100 m) will reduce cancer risk by over 60 percent. If the physical downwind distance is increased to 984 feet (300 m}, the relative concentration is reduced over 80 percent. 2-5 l-IB -741-Item 8. -526 HB -565-Item 10. - 243 Guidance Document 1 0.8 \ ~ ~ c: 0 :;::; ~ -0.6 c: Cl> " c: 0 u Cl> 0.4 ~ "' (jj et:: 0.2 . . 0 . 0 100 200 300 400 500 Distance from Edge of Freeway (m) Figure 2-1 Relative Concentration of Diesel Particulate Matter in Relation to the Distance from The Edge of a Freeway Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District. Adapted from the California Air Resources Board's Diesel Risk Reduction Plan. A comparison of total cancer risk and cancer risk from diesel particulate matter emissions in rural and urban areas shows that cancer risk associated with elevated levels of diesel particulate both decrease rapidly within the first 100 -150 meters from the edge of a roadway (Table 2-2). Estimated cancer risk from diesel particulate matter along rural and urban roadways is decreased approximately 68 percent at a distance 150 m (492 ft) from the edge of the roadway. Clearly, these data demonstrate that a minimum distance that separates sources of diesel emissions from nearby receptors is effective in reducing potential cancer risk. The AQMD recognizes that physical separation of the receptors from the pollution sources is not always reasonable or feasible particularly in mature communities. For example, in southern Los Angeles county a sequence of land use decisions in urban areas allowed freeway construction through existing neighborhoods. Item 8. -527 2-6 HB -742-HB -566-Item 10. - 244 Guidance Document Table 2-2 Cancer Risks from Diesel Particulate Matter at the Edge of Roadways in Rural and Urban Areas Distance from Edge of Diesel Particulate Matter Total Cancer Risk Roadway Cancer Risk !in one million) !in one million)* (meters) Rural Urban Rural* Urban* 20m 475 890 589 1104 150 m 151 277 187 343 500 m 86 159 107 197 Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District. Adapted from the California Air Resources Board's Diesel Risk Reduction Plan. *To account for gasoline vehicle emissions, the diesel PM risk was multiplied by 1.24. This represents the relative risk contribution from benzene, 1, 3 butadiene, formaldehyde, and acetaldehyde on a basin-wide basis. It is assumed that the vast majority of benzene, 1, 3 butadiene, formaldehyde, and acetaldehyde emissions come from on-road gasoline vehicles. The AQMD provides guidance for analyzing cancer risks from diesel particulate matter from mobile sources at facilities such as truck stops and warehouse distribution centers in the document titled Health Risk Assessment Guidance for Analyzing Cancer Risks from Mobile Source Diesel Idling Emissions for CEQA Air Quality Analysis. This document may be downloaded at http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/hdbk.html. This guidance describes analysis of potential cancer risks associated with diesel particulates from truck idling and movement (such as truck stops, warehouse and distribution centers, or transit centers), ship hotelling at ports, and train idling. It is suggested that projects with diesel-powered mobile sources use this health risk guidance document to quantify potential cancer risks from the diesel particulate emissions. Projects that incorporate transit nodes may include a range of multiple services ranging from a bus or light rail stop to a combination of services that may include bus, shuttles, light and heavy rail systems. The concept of a "clean" transit node refers to transit services that predominately operate with zero emission vehicles (e.g., electric light rail), clean fuel vehicles (e.g., compressed natural gas or hydrogen), or vehicles powered with low-emission engines (e.g., California certified Super Ultra Low Emissions Vehicles). Projects that emphasize "clean" transit nodes not only minimize VMT, but also reduce the potential health impacts associated with transit-related emissions on individuals living near transit services. Current USEPA regulations establish fuel registration and formulation requirements. All diesel fuels and all additives for on-road motor vehicles are required to be registered with the USEPA, and all new diesel-fueled on-road and off-road engines and vehicles sold in California are required to meet both federal and state emission certification requirements. In addition, the Carl Moyer Program, administered by CARB and local air 2-7 HB -743-Item 8. -528 HB -567-Item 10. - 245 Guidance Document districts, is a clean engine incentive program that incentivizes projects that substantially reduce emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and fine particulate matter (PM) from heavy-duty diesel engines. Funds are distributed to project proponents through the AQMD to incentivize cost-effective projects. Funds, in the form of grants for private companies, public agencies, or individuals operating heavy-duty diesel engines, cover an incremental portion of the cost of cleaner on-road, off-road, marine, locomotive, and agricultural irrigation pump engines. This framework is also used to award grants for other equipment and for retrofitting or repowering existing engines. The CARB Diesel Risk Reduction Plan proposes a three-pronged approach that would require use of low-sulfur diesel fuel; retrofitting existing engines with PM filters; and nearly a 90 percent reduction of PM emissions from all new diesel engines and vehicles. A number of adopted and proposed state regulations that will reduce diesel emissions target the following source categories: Heavy-Duty Public Fleets and Private Utilities; Cargo Handling Equipment; Non-Urban Transit Buses; Harbor Craft; Truck Idling from Sleeper Cabs; Off Road and Private On-Road Fleets; Agriculture Equipment; and Ships. Further, the AQMD has adopted fleet rules that will gradually shift public agencies to lower emissions and alternative fuel vehicles whenever a fleet operator with 15 or more vehicles replaces or purchases new vehicles. Rule1186.1 Rule 1191 Rule 1192 Rule 1193 Rule 1194 Rule 1195 Rule 1196 Less -polluting sweepers Clean On-Road Light and Medium-Duty Public Fleet Vehicle Clean On-Road Transit Buses Clean On-Road Residential and Commercial Refuse Collection Vehicles Commercial Airport Ground Access Vehicles Clean On-Road School Buses Clean On-Road Heavy-duty Public Fleet Vehicles Air regulatory agencies have collaborated closely with regulated industries, refineries and diesel vehicle manufacturers to establish cleaner fuel specifications and engine technologies. Although AQMD's fleet rules have been challenged, CARB is moving forward with its rulemaking to facilitate the implementation of fleet rules in the South Coast Air Basin that will result in significant emission reductions. In addition, state and federal requirements are the cornerstone of the clean air strategy to clean up diesel pollution in the South Coast district. Combined, the current and planned regulatory efforts by USEPA, CARB and AQMD are expected to substantially lower the average level of diesel emissions per vehicle. CARB or AQMD staff can be contacted to obtain additional information on the current status of rule development. The goals established by the CARB plan call for a statewide reduction in diesel particulate emissions of 75 percent by 2010 and 85 percent by 2020. AQMD' s 2004 addendum to the 2000 Air Toxics Control Plan indicates that full implementation of the 2003 AQMP, including CARB's measures to reduce diesel particulate matter, would reduce basin-wide toxic-weighted emissions by 50 percent. While there continues to be Item 8. -529 2-8 HB -744-HB -568-Item 10. - 246 Guidance Document an overall reduction in air pollution for the region, the emission reductions expected from cleaner engine standards that employ new control technologies often require a lengthy "fleet turnover" time to be effective. Given projections for future growth and additional vehicles that will utilize the regions transportation corridors, there are no guarantees that localized cancer risk and non-cancer impacts will diminish rapidly in the short term or adequately in the long run. Cities are encouraged to join the AQMD in a proactive approach to address existing health concerns in their communities identified in the AQMD's Multiple Air Toxics Emissions Study (MATES 11). Policies and strategies suggested in this guidance document can offer a near-term remedy to lower cancer risk from exposure to air pollution, and at the same time, provide preventive measures that protect health over the long-term planning horizon of the general plan. TACs from stationary sources are of particular concern with regard to sensitive receptors. For example, state law requires school districts to consider the impact of siting a new school close to existing facilities that emit TACs. This same principle should be applied in siting other sensitive sites such as retirement homes and hospitals. AQMD serves as a clearinghouse for publicly available information on stationary sources that emit TACs and associated public health risks. This information is compiled from documentation required of facilities that emit TACs by AOMD Rules 1401 & 1402, and Assembly Bill (AB) 2588 Air Toxics Hot Spots Program (H&SC §§ 39660 et seq.). Toxic risk assessments are routinely included in CEQA evaluations performed by the local governments in its land use decisions Jurisdictions may conduct a current inventory of all major sources of air pollution within a specified radius of the proposed sensitive site. Examples of facilities with the potential to emit TACs that could pose a health risk are shown in Table 2-3. Also, AOMD staff are available to assist local governments in identifying sources of TACs within their jurisdictions and evaluating potential health risk from TAC exposure. Local governments may contact the AQMD to obtain recommended analytical methods. Existing land use conflicts are best addressed on an individual basis. AQMD is available to assist cities and counties in evaluating local government options and strategies for minimizing existing pollution exposure problems. Options may include relocation, recycling, redevelopment, rezoning, process changes, incentive programs, and other types of measures. 2-9 HB -745-Item 8. -530 HB -569-Item 10. - 247 Guidance Document Table 2-3 Examples of Facilities That Emit Toxic Air Contaminants Categories Facility Type Air Pollutants of Concern Commercial Perchloroethylene Dry Cleaners 1 Perchloroethylene Chrome Platers/Chrome Spraying Operations Hexavalent Chromium Gas Stations Benzene Auto Body Shops Metals, Solvents Furniture Repair Solvents'. Methylene Chloride Film Processing Services Solvents, Perchloroethylene Cold Storage Distribution Centers, Warehouses Diesel Particulate Matter Printing Shops Solvents Diesel Engines Diesel Particulate Matter Industrial Manufacturers Solvents, Metals Metal Platers, Welders, Metal Spray (fiame Hexavalent Chromium, Nickel, Metals spray) Operations Chemical Producers Solvents, Metals Gasoline Refineries Benzene, Solvents, Metals, PAHs Furniture Manufacturers Solvents Shipbuilding and Repair Hexavalent Chromium and other metals, Solvents Hazardous Waste Incinerators Dioxin, Solvents, Metals Power Plants Benzene, Formaldehyde, Particulate Matter Research and Development Facilities Solvents, Metals, etc. Freight Distribution Centers Diesel Particulate Matter Public Landfills Benzene, Vinyl Chloride, Diesel Particulate Matter Waste Water Treatment Plants Hydrogen Sulfide Medical Waste Incinerators Dioxin, Benzene, PAH, PCBs, 1,3-Butadiene Recycling, Garbage Transfer Stations Diesel Particulate Matter Municipal Incinerators Dioxin, Benzene, PAH, PCBs, 1,3-Butadiene Transportation Port Facilities Diesel Particulate Matter, Methyl Bromide Airports Benzene, Formaldehyde Rail Yards (diesel locomotives) Diesel Particulate Matter Rail Corridors Diesel Particulate Matter lntermodal Facilities Diesel Particulate Matter Truck Stops Diesel Particulate Matter Freeways and Roadways Diesel Particulate Matter, Benzene, 1,3-Butadiene, Formaldehyde Agricultural Operations Farming Operations Diesel Particulate Matter, VOCs, NOx, PM10, CO, SOx, Pesticides Livestock and Dairv Operations Ammonia, VOCs, PM10 Source: Adapted fron1 the Proposed Alf Qualtty and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. CARB, March 2005. 1Non-perc alternatives (e.g. wet cleaning and C02 cleaning) 1nay e!hninate TAC e1nissions. 2Many, but not all solvents contain TACs. Item 8. -531 2-10 I-!B -7 46-HB -570-Item 10. - 248 Guidance Document Mapping Sources of Toxic Air Contaminants. Land use/zoning maps should be utilized to identify the location of facilities and transit corridors that are potential sources of TACs and the locations of sensitive receptors. An internet-based mapping tool is available from CARB that allows local planners to view maps showing the locations of air pollution sources. The Community Health Air Pollution Information System (CHAPIS) was developed by ARB and the State's 35 local air districts. The AQMD provides the data for facilities in its jurisdiction. Facilities that emit 1 O or more tons per year of nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, carbon monoxide, PM10, or reactive organic gases are included in the database. AQMD facilities that emit TACs are being phased in by categories. The CHAPIS database includes chemical manufacturing, metal fabrication, and aerospace/electronics manufacturing facilities if they have conducted health risk assessments under California's Air Toxics "Hot Spots" program. The remaining "Hot Spot" facilities and other industries and smaller businesses, such as gas stations and dry cleaners will eventually be added. An example of a CHAPIS map for the Central Los Angeles -Port region is shown in Figure 2-2 . . .. . "· . ( - I ... ""-.. ... \ .. '" ' \ I _l- \ ' I ' I J Figure 2-2 Example of a CHAPIS Map of Central Los Angeles Port Regions CHAPIS maps may answer questions such as: • What are the major sources of air pollution within several miles from a residence? • What are the relative contributions of mobile and stationary source emissions? • What are major sources of air pollution near schools? • What air pollutants are emitted by a particular facility or from mobile sources? 2-11 HB -747-Item 8. -532 HB -571-Item 10. - 249 Guidance Document While the CHAPIS information can serve as an indicator of local levels of air pollution, it is the exposure to emissions that influences health effects. Exposure is the amount of pollution that someone actually breathes or otherwise ingests. The degree of exposure varies with the distance from the source and the activities of the individual. Exposure is also dependent on how the emissions are released and dispersed into the atmosphere. Exposure to air pollutants can also occur from indoor sources such as cooking, cleaning, and smoking. Health risk, as it is related to exposure to air contaminants is influenced by the number of air pollutants an individual is exposed to and the relative toxicity of those pollutants. The air pollutant emission information contained in CHAP IS is provided for general informational purposes. This mapping tool does not address the contribution of indoor sources of air pollution, and it does not show exposure levels or the health risks associated with the pollutants and sources it tracks. Not all stationary source facilities that are required to be permitted by the AQMD can be identified by CHAPIS at this time. Also, there can be a lag time between when the emissions occurred and the reporting of the information to the AQMD or GARB emission inventory databases. The AQMD should be consulted for the most recent emissions data and for information on facilities that may not appear on CHAPIS maps. Siting issues, with respect to sensitive receptors need to be identified early in the review process, preferably before projects are formally submitted to the public agencies' planning boards. The following three air quality questions related to land use compatibility should be considered for each project in close proximity to sensitive receptors: • Will a sensitive receptor be located downwind from an existing source of dust or odors (Table 2-1 )? • Will a sensitive receptor be located in close proximity to a congested roadway or an existing facility that emits TACs (Table 2-3)? • Is adequate separation provided, or are there established siting criteria to minimize exposure and health risk between sensitive receptors and sources of air pollution (see Table 1-1 in CARB's Draft Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. February 2005)? Cities and counties could establish policies that provide for the location of sensitive sites and sources of air pollution in a manner that seeks to avoid the over-concentration of these facilities near sensitive sites. A number of strategies that may be employed to address over-concentration of emission sources and the cumulative impacts of the combined emissions include: • physical separation between the source and the sensitive site • design features at the source to minimize air pollution emissions • siting, permitting and zoning policies • capping cumulative impacts of various pollution sources Item 8. -533 2-12 HB -748-HB -572-Item 10. - 250 Guidance Document • changing the land use designations in areas where there are significant cumulative impacts "Cumulative" air quality analyses describe health and nuisance impacts related to cumulative emissions from sources that individually comply with AQMD, state, and federal rules. For example, in local jurisdictions where there are neighborhoods near a relatively large number of industrial facilities or near heavy cross-town traffic, there is concern that there may be accumulated effects of numerous emission sources operating near residences, schools, or other sensitive sites. Cumulative impacts may be mitigated through siting and zoning policies that consider, where feasible, appropriate setbacks and buffer zones to disperse the air pollutants before they reach sensitive receptors. When physical separation of sensitive receptors from sources of air pollution is not a feasible option, particularly in older well-developed communities, the design features of a specific facility or project (e.g., barriers and walls, landscaping, stack height, and ventilation systems) should be evaluated as an alternative to physical land separation. JOB-HOUSING BALANCE Residents in urban areas in the South Coast basin have become increasingly concerned with increased traffic congestion and the failure of the region to achieve state and federal clean air standards. The concept of a "jobs/housing balance" is based on the premise that the number of vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) can be reduced when sufficient jobs are available locally to balance the employment demands of the community, and when commercial services are convenient to residential areas. Achieving a good balance requires planning the location and nature of jobs and housing in order to encourage a reduction in vehicle trips and VMT while increasing mass transit ridership and alternative modes of transportation, such as bicycles and walking. The AQMD and the SCAG both embrace jobs/housing balance as a viable tool available to local governments to reduce air pollution. SUGGESTED GOAL, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES/STRATEGIES RELATED TO LAND USE Goal 1 Land use policies that address the relationship between land use and air quality to protect public health and minimize impacts on existing land use patterns and future land use development Objective 1.1 Through land use plans provide heightened consideration of policies and strategies to minimize exposure of sensitive receptors and sites (e.g., schools, hospitals, and residences) to health risks related to air pollution. 2-13 HB -749-Ite1n 8. -534 HB -573-Item 10. - 251 Guidance Document Suggested Policies/Strategies to Protect Sensitive Receptors from Health Risks Related to Air Pollution: AQ 1.1.1 Develop mapping and inventory resources to identify sensitive receptors and sources of air pollution. AQ 1.1.2 Consider environmental justice issues as they are related to potential health impacts associated with air pollution and ensure that all land use decisions, including enforcement actions, are made in an equitable fashion to protect residents, regardless of age, culture, ethnicity, gender, race, socioeconomic status, or geographic location from the health effects of air pollution. AQ 1.1.3 Encourage site plan designs to provide the appropriate set-backs and/or design features that reduce TAC at the source. AQ 1.1.4 Encourage the applicants for sensitive land uses (e.g., residences, schools, daycare centers, playgrounds and medical facilities) to incorporate design features (e.g., pollution prevention, pollution reduction, barriers, landscaping, ventilation systems, or other measures) in the planning process to minimize the potential impacts of air pollution on sensitive receptors. AQ 1.1.5 Promote and support mixed-use land patterns that allow the integration of retail, office, institutional and residential uses. Consult with the AQMD when siting new facilities with dust, odors or TAC emissions to avoid siting those facilities near sensitive receptors and avoid siting sensitive receptors near sources of air pollution. AQ 1.1.6 Consider cumulative air quality impacts from both existing and new projects when making siting decisions. AQ 1.1.7 Facilitate communication among residents, businesses and the AQMD to quickly resolve air pollution nuisance complaints. Distribute information to advise residents on how to register a complaint with AQMD (AQMD's "Cut Smog" program). AQ 1.1.8 The owners of new developments that have the potential to emit air pollutants that would impact sensitive receptors are required, during the early stages of the business license, development or conditional use permit processes, to notify residents and businesses adjacent to the proposed site prior to starting construction. However, potential business and resident occupants newly locating near sites that may impact sensitive receptors should be encouraged to inquire through their local government or the AQMD about the air quality emissions from such sites. AQ 1.1.9 Consider all feasible alternatives to minimize emissions from diesel equipment (e.g., trucks, construction equipment, and generators).* AQ 1.1.10 Actively participate in decisions on the siting or expansion of facilities or land uses (e.g. freeway expansions), to ensure the inclusion of air quality Item 8. -535 2-14 HB -750-HB -574-Item 10. - 252 Guidance Document mitigation measures. AQ 1.1.11 Where decisions on land use may result in emissions of air contaminants that pose significant health risks, consider options, including possible relocation, recycling, redevelopment, rezoning, process changes, incentive programs, and other types of measures. Objective 1.2 Reduce mobile source emissions by reducing vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled associated with land use patterns. Suggested Policies/Strategies to reduce vehicle miles traveled: AQ 1.2.1 For planned high density and mixed use developments, project proponents should consult with the local transit agency and incorporate all appropriate and feasible transit amenities into the plans. AQ 1.2.2 Establish a Mixed-Use Zoning District that offers incentives to mixed use developments. AQ 1.2.3 Encourage through the land use entitlement process or business regulation, design of commercial and residential areas to foster pedestrian circulation. AQ 1.2.4 Adopt and implement zoning codes that encourage community centers, telecommuting programs, and home-based businesses.* AQ 1.2.5 Create opportunities to receive State transportation funds by adopting incentives (e.g., an expedited review process) for planning and implementing infill development projects within urbanized areas that include job centers and clean transportation nodes (e.g., preparation of "transit village" plans). AQ 1.2.6 Collaborate with local, regional, state and federal agencies to create incentives for "job/housing opportunity zones," to promote housing in job- rich areas and jobs in housing-rich areas. AQ 1.2. 7 Design safe and efficient vehicle access to commercial land uses from arterial streets to ensure efficient vehicular ingress and egress. AQ 1.2.8 Locate public facilities and services so that they further enhance job creation opportunities. AQ 1.2.9 Ensure that development projects and zoning codes create the maximum opportunity for the use of bicycles as an alternative work transportation mode.* AQ 1.2.10 Encourage "walkable neighborhoods" by siting parks and community centers near residential areas.* 2-15 HB-751-Item 8. -536 HB -575-Item 10. - 253 Guidance Document Objective 1.3 Reduce mobile source emissions by increasing population densities within one-half mile of clean transit nodes. Suggested Policies/Strategies to Increase Densities: AQ 1.3.1 AQ 1.3.2 Increase residential and commercial densities around clean rail and bus transit stations and corridors. Clean rail and bus transit nodes and corridors are those that are served by rail and buses that are powered by electricity, alternative fuels (i.e., CNG and LNG), or that meet or exceed SULEV emission standards. Sponsor paratransit transportation systems, such as neighborhood electric vehicle "station cars" or jitneys for short trips to and from transit nodes.* *Potential funding for these policies has been identified in Appendix E. Item 8. -537 2-16 HB -752-HB -576-Item 10. - 254 Exhibit 9 HB-753-Iten1 8. -538 HB -577-Item 10. - 255 PAULE. COOK AND ASSOCIATES -----------e December 12, 2007 Jerry Moffatt Rainbow Disposal Co. P.O. Box 1026 Huntington Beach, CA 92647-1026 Subject: Traffic Analysis, Rainbow Disposal Project Dear Mr. Moffatt, The following is a traffic impact analysis for Baseline and proposed Project conditions at Rainbow Disposal in the City of Huntington Beach. This traffic analysis has been prepared because of a proposed increase in the allowable transfer station tonnage at the facility. I BASELINE CONDITIONS The Baseline conditions include the following: • Current refuse collection and disposal for the Cities of Huntington Beach and Fountain Valley. • Current operation of a material recovery facility (MRF) and transfer station permitted at 2,800 tons per day. • A new 20,800 square foot maintenance facility. • A new 10,700 square foot bin repair shop. • A new CNG fuel island. • Implementation of a three-cart residential pickup system. Baseline Traffic Conditions Table I shows the 3,023 average daily trips generated by Rainbow Disposal under Baseline conditions. Table 1 includes a breakdown of trips by type of vehicle, converted to passenger car equivalents (PCEs ). Based on information in the Highway Capacity Manual, passenger car equivalents (PCEs) for flat terrain were assigned as follows: Passenger cars and light trucks Front-loaders, roll-off and rent-a-bin trucks (35 feet long) Transfer trucks (70 feet long) PCE= 1.0 PCE=2.0 PCE=3.0 Table I is based on 24-hour surveys conducted daily of different types of vehicles entering the facility's driveways during the week of February 20, 2006. The surveys included employee vehicles parked on Nichols Street. Total trips (entering and exiting) were calculated based on the type of vehicle, the day of the week, time of day and their schedules. The new daily PCB 7155 Little Harbor Drive • Huntington Beach, California 92648 • (714) 960-8298 Fax (714) 536-1333 Ite1n 8. -539 HB -754-HB -578-Item 10. - 256 Jeny Moffatt December 12, 2007 Page2 trips generated by the three-cart system and the CNG facility are also included in Table I. Under Baseline conditions, the AM peak hour is from 8:00 to 9:00 and accounts for approximately 8% (248) of the daily trips. The PM peak hour is from 4:00 to 5:00 pm and accounts for approximately 4% (131) of the daily trips. It should be noted that most employees enter or leave the facility before or after peak hours. Also, Rainbow Disposal schedules their vehicles to avoid traveling on arterial highways during peak traffic hours for time efficiency. Peak hour traffic counts (see Appendix A) were conducted to determine existing conditions at six arterial intersections most heavily used by Rainbow Disposal. The six intersections are: Warner Avenue and Goldenwest Street Warner Avenue and Gothard Street Warner Avenue and Nichols Street Warner Avenue and Beach Boulevard Slater Avenue and Gothard Street Slater Avenue and Nichols Street Figure I shows existing geometric conditions at the six intersections. Figure 2 shows AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes for the six intersections under Baseline conditions including the three- cart system and CNG facility. II PROPOSED PROJECT The proposed Project includes the following: • Increase in the maximum allowed transfer station tonnage from the current 2,800 tons to a maximum of4,000 tons. • Increased use of the CNG fuel island above Baseline conditions. Project Traffic Conditions The following describes the trip generation and trip distribution used to determine Project intersection impacts. a. Trip Generation Table II shows the 3,597 average daily trips generated by Rainbow Disposal under Baseline plus Project conditions. Table II includes a breakdown of trips by type of vehicle, converted to passenger car equivalents (PCEs ). HB -755-Item 8. -540 HB -579-Item 10. - 257 Jerry Moffatt December 12, 2007 Page3 Trip generation for the Project is shown on Table ill. The Project generates 574 new trips on an average day. Approximately 18% (106) are during the 8:00-9:00 AM peak hour and 6% (35) during the 4:00-5:00 PM peak hour. Trip generation was determined by Rainbow management analyzing the type of vehicles and the time they will be entering and leaving the facility to deliver or remove the additional 1,600 tons to be handled by the transfer station on an average day. The Project also includes 86 new trips to the CNG fuel island above Baseline conditions. 30 of these trips are in the AM peak hour. b. Trip Distribution Figure 3 shows the Project trips distributed through the six intersections during the AM and PM peak hours. The trip distribution was analyzed by Rainbow management and Paul Cook and Associates based on current patterns of movement to and from the facility for transfer station related traffic. ID BACKGROUND CONDITIONS The Baseline Conditions are analyzed based on 2006 surveys conducted at Rainbow Disposal and 2006 traffic counts taken at the six intersection that were analyzed. To analyze project impacts, the inclusion of traffic generated by growth is appropriate. Known as background traffic, it is expected that development in the area will add traffic to the intersections during the implementation of the proposed project. Background traffic was determined by utilizing a growth factor of 1 % per year. This growth factor includes vacant land proposed to be developed on the southeast corner of Nichols Street and Warner Avenue. Based on the nature of the proposed project, it was determined that five years or 2011 would be an appropriate future year to analyze as the background conditions. Figure 5 shows the 2011 plus Project AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes. Table N shows the intersection capacity utilization (ICU) analysis results for 2011 plus Project. Levels of service (LOS) remain the same as the analysis for Baseline plus Project at the six intersections. IV INTERSECTION ANALYSIS This study analyzes traffic conditions at six intersections that are most impacted by Rainbow Disposal vehicles as listed previously. Figure 4 shows Baseline plus Project traffic volumes. Table N shows the results of the traffic analysis for the Project using the Highway Capacity Manual Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) method. The worksheets for these analyses are included in Appendix B. Item 8. -541 HB -756-HB -580-Item 10. - 258 Jerry Moffatt December 12, 2007 Page4 The maximum increase in ICU is 0.02 in the AM peak hour at the intersection of Warner Avenue and Nichols Street and 0.01 in the PM peak hour at the intersections of Warner Avenue and Beach Boulevard and Slater Avenue and Nichols Street. The Project does not change existing Levels of Service (LOS) except at the intersection of Warner and Beach where the ICU in the PM peak increases from 0.80 to 0.81 and changes the LOS from C to D. The change in ICU at each of these six arterial intersections due to Rainbow's proposed Project is insignificant. V FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Rainbow Disposal's proposed increased transfer station tonnage to 4,000 allowable tons will increase average daily trips by 574, AM peak trips by I 06 and PM peak trips by 35. These peak hour trips were distributed to six arterial intersections. The analysis results are shown in Table IV. The results of the analysis shows the Project has no significant traffic impact. Please contact me at (714) 960-8298 or ocook2@socal.rr.com if you have any questions. Sincerely, -7)1E.Cook \-Q President Cc: Chip Clements Dick Harlow Attachments: Appendix A • Intersection Traffic Counts Appendix B -ICU Worksheets HB -757-Item 8. -542 HB -581-Item 10. - 259 TABLE I Baseline Passenger Car Equivalents Hour rontloade~ 'utomate rab roll off transfe1 metal dirt 12-1a.m. 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 1 -2a.m. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2-3a.m. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3-4a.m. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4-5a.m. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5-6a.m. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6-7a.m. 68 56 10 18 36 3 3 7-8a.m. 0 0 0 0 0 0 s 8-9a.m 8 48 20 36 30 0 0 9-10a.m. 98 36 0 36 51 6 12 10-11a.m. 26 24 20 8 36 0 0 11 -12p.m. 8 24 0 36 54 0 9 12 -1P.m. 52 56 20 26 33 6 0 1 -2p.m. 22 24 0 24 54 0 9 2-3p.m. 28 16 20 22 18 3 0 3-4P.m. 28 28 16 36 24 0 9 4-Sn.m. 6 14 s 16 9 0 .o 5 "6P.m. 0 0 0 16 0 0 s 6-70.m. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 -80.m. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 -9o.m. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 -100.m. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10-110.m. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 -12a.m. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 total: 344 326 112 274 345 18 54 recycle green public 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 9 56 0 ·o .66 .. 0 ' 18 ' 72 18 0 86 0 18 90 18 0 82 0 18 90 18 0 84 0 6 88 0 6 90 0 3 75 O· 0 62 18 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 84 78 943 mployee CNG 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 160 0 24 .24 10 .6 36 0 25 24 15 0 0 6 8 0 0 0 52 6 2 0 · .. 47. '0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 379 66 total 0 0 0 0 0 2 419 120 248 379 271 246 307 243 201 295 131 131 18 12 0 0 0 0 3023 ' 00 >n r- ' i1l cc ("(") '1" >n 00 s il) ~ HB -582-Item 10. - 260 I TABLE II Baseline Plus Project Passenger Car Equivalents Hours rontloader utomate1 rab roll off ransfe1 metal dirt 12 -1a.m. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 -2a.m. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2-3a.m. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3-4a.m. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4-5a.m. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 -6a.m. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6-7a.m. 60 48 10 8 90 3 6 7-8a.m. 0 0 :·Q __ ' 12 0 0 6· 8-9a.m. 28 56 20 36• 84 0 0 9-1Da.m. 82 56 2 28 0 6 18 10-11a.m. 31 52 18 20 90 0 0 11-12p.m. 27 56 2 30 84 0 18 12 -1D.m. 74 56 14 28 0 6 0 1 -2P.m. 10 28 6 28 84 0 18 2-30.m. 22 44 14 24 84 6 0 3-40.m. 28 40 12 28 78 3 12 4-50.m. 14 4 8 28 18 0 ·o 5-nn.m. 0 0 0 8 36 0 6 6-7o.m. 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 7 -80.m. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8-90.m. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9-100.m. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 -110.m. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 -12a.m. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 total: 376 440 106 278 648 24 90 recycle green public 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 18 56 o. 0. ". 66' i 0 .. 18 '· 72 i 24 0 86 0 18 90 24 0 82 0 18 90 18 0 84 0 18 88 0 0 90 0' 12 .. 80: 0 0 64• 12 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 102 102 950 mployei> CNG 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 111 0 24 30 .10 ' 30 36 8 25 24 15 0 0 6 8 24 0 0 52 30 2 0 46 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 329 152 total 0 0 0 0 0 2 410 ·138 354 .. 346 368 338 292 308 300 373 166 160 . 18 12 0 12 0 0 3597 ""1" ""1" <n 00 s Cl) >=< ' Cl> <n r-- ' 0'.1 :r: HB -583-Item 10. - 261 TABLE Ill Project Passenger Car Equivalents Hours Baseline Plus Proiect PCE Baseline PCE 12 -1a.m. 0 0 1 -2a.m. 0 0 2-3a.m. 0 0 3 -4a.m. 0 0 4-5a.m. 0 0 5-6a.m. 2 2 6-7a.m. 410 419 7 -ea.in .. 138 ii 120 8-9a.m. 354 ' 248 9-10a.m. 346 379 10-11a.m. 368 271 11 -12p.m. 338 246 12-1o.m. 292 307 1 -2p.m. 308 243 2-3p.m. 300 201 3-40.m. 373 295 4-5P.m. 166 131 .. 5-60.m. 160 131 6-7o.m. 18 18 7 -80.m. 12 12 8-90.m. 0 0 9-100.m. 12 0 10 -110.m. 0 0 11 -12a.m. 0 0 total: 3,597 3,023 Project PCE 0 0 0 0 0 0 -9 18 :·: .· 106 . -33 97 92 -15 65 99 78 35 29 0 0 0 12 0 0 574 ' c '-D r-- ' i l/') "'1' l/') 00 s ~ HB -584-Item 10. - 262 ~Kennedy COMMISSION July 7, 2017 Ms. Jennifer Villasenor City of Huntington Beach Community Development Depmiment 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RE: Comments on Huntington Beach's General Plan Update -Land Use Element Dear Ms. Villasenor: www. kenned ycon1111 issi on .org 17701 Cowan Ave., Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92614 949 250 0909 Fax 949 263 0647 The Kennedy Commission (the Commission) is a coalition of residents and community organizations that advocates for the production of homes affordable for families earning less than $20,000 annually in Orange County. Forn1ed in 2001, the Commission has been successful in pminering with Orange County jurisdictions to create effective housing policies that have led to the new construction of homes affordable to lower income working families. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the City of Huntington Beach's General Plan Update. We have reviewed the draft and are submitting this letter to provide public comments. As the City moves fonvard with the update, the Commission urges the City to continue its support for the development of affordable homes and consider the following: I. Revise Goal LU-4 Policy A to read as: Encourage a mix of residential types to acconm10date people with diverse housing needs at all income levels. 2. Revise Goal LU-4 Policy E to read as: Encourage housing oppo1iunities for all economic segments of the community to be located in proximity to employment to reduce vehicle miles traveled. 3. Include a stand-alone policy under Goal LU-4: Encourage the development of affordable homes for lower income households and workers in the City. 4. Ensure the update of the General Plan is consistent with the Housing Element pursuant to Section 65300.5 of the State Government Code. Ranked among the top ten least affordable metropolitan areas in the country, Orange County is suffering from an affordable housing crisis. A resident must em·n at least $34.87 per hour to afford a two-bedroom apmiment at a fair market rent of $1,813 a month. 1 As rents and the number of residents needing affordable homes have continually increased, the number of affordable homes being built for lower income households has not kept up with the demand. An additional I 09,965 affordable rental homes are needed to address Orange County's housing needs for lower income renters. 2 1 Out of Reach 2017~ The High Cost of Houslng, National Low [11co1ne Housing Coalition, p.38, 2017. 2 Orange County Renters in Crisis: A Call for Action, California Housing Partnership Corporalion, p. I, May 2017. HB-761-HB -585-Item 10. - 263 Ms. Jennifer Villasenor July 7, 2017 Page 2 of2 Burdened by the high cost of housing, on a single night in January 2017, nearly 4,800 people experienced homelessness in Orange County. 3 The need to address this crisis is urgent, especially for homeless children. During the 2015 to 2016 school year, 28,450 students in grades Pre-K thrnugh 12'11 grade were identified as homeless living in unstable environments in the Orange County school districts.4 In addition, according to the recent release of the Cost Study of Homelessness, close to $300 million was spent to address homelessness in Orange County during 2014 to 2015.5 Studies have shown that affordable housing coupled with suppo1iive services is a cost-efficient intervention that will safely house individuals experiencing chronic homelessness. With high housing costs and significant lack of affordable homes, many workers and families, especially those who earn lower wages, strnggle financially to live in the city they work in. These impacts not only hmi workers and families but may also impact the city's economic competitiveness and attractiveness to major employers to provide jobs. Locating homes, specifically affordable homes, near transit, job centers and neighborhood services will decrease travel costs and allow individuals to save money and spend it elsewhere in the City. In particular, the environmental impacts of a development are especially less drastic when a person can afford to live and spend their money in the same community in which they work in. In 2017, the average commute time to work for Orange County residents was approximately 30 minutes and approximately 87% of commuters drove alone. 6 Improving location accessibility and connectivity reduces the dependency for residents, especially for lower income households and workers, to drive their automobiles. This will lead to decreased environmental impacts, such as vehicles miles traveled (VMT) and greenhouse gas emissions, which will contribute to the project's overall purpose and intent to create a sustainable transit oriented neighb01110od. The General Plan will also align with the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008 (SB 375) and help the City implement and comply with SB 375 goals of reducing VMT and greenhouse gas emissions. Please keep us informed of any revisions, updates and meetings regarding the City's General Plan Update. If you have any questions, please contact me at (949) 250-0909 or cesarc@kennedycommission.org. Sincerely, ~~a Cesar CovaiTUbias Executive Director ·1 Orange Counly Point in Time Count 2017, County of Orange, l\1ay 2017. 1 OC Community Indicators 2017, Children and Families Commission of Orange County, p. 34. t\1ay 2017. 5 Cost Study or Homelessness Executive Sumn1ary, Orange County United Way, Jamboree and University of California, Irvine, p. 2, March 2017. 6 Profile of Huntington Beach, Southern California /\ssocialion of Govcrmncnts, p. 22, May 2017. Ite1n 8. -547 HB -762-HB -586-Item 10. - 264 HUNTINGTON BEACH Environmental Board Environmental Board General Plan EIR Comments As an overall document, we as the Environmental Board saw numerous positive measures outlined in the General Plan to improve the environment of our city while maintaining consideration for the natural elements impacted by our city's growth and development. Some concerns, questions, and general comments on specific sections are detailed below. 4.3 Biological Resources Goal ERC-1: Adequately sized and located parks meet the changing recreational and leisure needs of existing and future residents. ERC-1.F: Continue to balance and maintain a mix of recreational focused and passive and natural enviromnent areas within open spaces. How does this "protect special status species"? The balance is not indicated and it would be easy to interpret the need for recreation over native landscapes. This policy does not support special status species. This policy should be rewritten to state the City's desire to do that. Example: "Work to preserve, expand and rebuild native habitats that support special status species within open spaces while designing passive recreational uses to prnvide for the leisure needs of existing and future residents" (include studies that show the benefits for these types of more reflective and quiet spaces.) (p. 4.3-8) ERC-3.D, ERC-6.A, ERC-6.B, ERC-6.C, and ERC-6.D are excellent policies to support the goal of supporting special status species and we concur that these (p. 4.3-8, 4.3-9) Goal ERC-6: Various agencies that oversee habitat areas and wildlife c01ridors, including but not limited to parks, beaches, coastal dunes, marine waters, and wetlands, coordinate decisionmaking and management to ensure ongoing protection of resources. ERC-6.E: Reclaim the ASCON site and consider restoring it to native coastal salt marsh and to expand the wetland corridor associated with the Huntington Beach Wetlands. This policy needs to be updated/removed to reflect the latest Depaitment of Toxic Substances Conh·ol (DTSC) Proposed Remediation Action Plan (RAP) for the ASCON site. There will be no opportunity to restore any salt marsh or wetlands here so this is not supporting this goal. (p. 4.3-9) Policy ERC-6.E would provide for city effo1ts to reclaim and restore the ASCON site in order to restore and expand wetland habitat, expanding the beneficial functions of the Huntington Beach Wetlands. Based on DTSC's most recent RAP and soon to commence construction plans, this statement is totally unrealistic and needs to be removed. (p.4.3-9) Sensitive habitats include those that are of special concern to resource agencies and those that are considered to be and are protected under CEQA, Section 1600 of the Fish and Game Code, CCC, and Section 404 of the CW A. Sensitive natural communities within the planning area include: • Southern Coastal Salt Marsh (1,068 acres) HB -763-Item 8. -548 HB -587-Item 10. - 265 HUNTINGTON BEACH Environmental Board • Southern Foredunes (6 acres) • Southern Dune Scrnb ( 4 acres) • Eucalyptus (61 acres) • Southern Cottonwood Willow Riparian SCJub (32 acres) Identify where these areas are both by referencing the map where they are shown and also by giving a general description next to this listing. For example, where are the 32 acres of Southern Cottonwood Willow Riparian Scrnb? A written description next to a policy helps to infonn that policy a little better. If those 32 acres are spread across the entire City in pockets, that will require different actions than if they are concentrated in one area. (p. 4.3-10) ERC-6.F: Establish aquatic and terrestrial connections between the Bolsa Chica Wetlands and Central Park by restoring area in the oil fields. What control does the City have over the oil fields, land use? If the developer complies with the land use and zoning there won't be a chance for additional conditions to development. Be more specific about the goals of restoration, e.g. "require the cleanup and restoration of oil fiends to support special status species and restore native and sensitive vegetation communities. Provide enough space to ensure the health and longevity of these species and vegetation communities" and spell out more clearly in the General Plan, perhaps by an overlay, of what is required with respect to establishing these connections: a certain percentage of the land, etc. (p. 4.3-11) Waterbodies within the planning area include the Santa Ana River, marine waters, and the Sunset, Westminster, Ocean View, East Grove-Wintersberg, Huntington Beach, Talbert, and Fountain Valley flood cham1els. Please indicate that these "water bodies" are owned and maintained by the County of Orange and are regularly denuded of plant material to allow the channels to perform their primary function of flood protection. It's disingenuous at best, and dishonest at worst, to list these "bodies of water" in this section as if they can and are maintained as natural habitats. It is not in the City's best interests to do anything other than maintain these areas as flood control channels. Continue to list them here however make it abundantly clear they should not be counted as contributing to Biological Resources. (p.4.3-11) Goal ERC-7: Wetland areas that serve as important biological resources for threatened and endangered birds, fish, and other species are protected and restored. ERC-7.E: Reduce pollutant rnnoff from new development and urban runoff to the maximum extent practicable. Please list actions, e.g. "Reduce pollutant runoff from new development and urban runoff by developing an on-going infonnational campaign to residents and measuring and publishing the success of that effort every 5 years." (p. 4- 3.12) Goal ERC-7: Wetland areas that serve as impmiant biological resources for tlu·eatened and endangered birds, fish, and other species are protected and restored. There should be a policy to expand wetlands if the opportunity arises such as placing conditions on new development in Ite1n 8. -549 HB -764-HB -588-Item 10. - 266 HUNTINGTON BEACH Environmental Board exchange for parkland or other strategies. TI1e health of the some wetlands depend on expanding them. (p.4.3-12) However, future development could potentially result in indirect loss or degradation of wildlife corridors through increased light and noise pollution, introduction of native species, habitat fragmentation, and increased urban runoff. This is a very good point and we are glad it was made. (4.3-12) MM4.3-1 Mitigation Measures: lfno active nests are identified on or within 250 feet of the construction site, no further mitigation is necessary. If an active nest of a Migratory Bird Treaty Act protected species is identified on site (per established tlu·esholds) a 100 foot no-work buffer shall be maintained between the nest and construction activity. Since the buffer zone for construction approval is 250 feet, would a 100 foot no-work construction zone offer the same protection or should this be increased to 250 feet? · 4.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions This section discusses emissions of Greenhouse Gases (GHG) in the planning area and evaluates the potential for associated effects ofGHG on climate change due to implementation of the General Plan Update. Information in this section is based on the Greenhouse Gas Emissions TBR prepared by Atkins! (Volume I), and the GHG Emissions Inventory and Forecast Technical Report prepared by Michael Baker Intemational2 (Appendix C, Volume Ill). The discussion about baseline conditions, including additional infonnation on the existing environmental setting and regulatory framework for GHG, is included in the Greenhouse Gas Emissions TBR. The General Plan Update addresses GHG in the Environmental Resources and Conservation Element. However, policies in the Land Use Element, Circulation Element, and Public Services and Infrastructure Element also help to reduce the citywide greenhouse gas emissions. The accompanying draft Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program (GORP) prepared by Michael Baker International (Appendix G, Volume III), contains specifics about the city's GHG emissions and specific strategies to reduce emissions below established levels. No comment letters regarding GHG emissions were received in response to the NOP circulated for the General Plan Update. Q. 4.6.1 C3 p. 4.6-3 How much of the GHG from visitors' traffic is accounted for in the inventory? Q. p. 4.6-4 "Establish a mechanism to monitor the plan's progress toward achieving the level and to require amendment ifthe plan is not achieving specified levels. Section 5.2 of the draft GORP meets this requirement" Q. p. 4.6-5 What is the City's MTC02 per service population? "a level of 53 percent below 2020 emissions levels is established as the threshold of significance for GHG emissions in 2040 for purposes of this EIR." Transportation produces majority of GHG impacts • Relate everything to cars-off-the-road measure so people can understand (e.g. • Include measures that can facilitate electric charging in homes to promote o Specific pennitting for such installations including adopted standard plans HB -765-Item 8. -550 HB -589-Item 10. - 267 HUNTINGTON BEACH Environmental Board o Materials describing how solar can charge cars at night and systems Q. Should local industrial contributions to GHG emissions (e.g. AES Power Plant, Republic Services, and other industrial tenants) be incorporated into the GHG reduction program? The AES upgrade may already address this point for that facility. Republic, as a community contractor, certainly affects local GHG production and would be logical to include specifically in an overall GHG reduction strategy. Ch. 4.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials 1. Environmental impacts of industrial and commercial hazards affecting residential areas, including ongoing monitoring and response to local hazards posed by the Rainbow/Republic Waste Processing Facility and other local air emission sources, and the City's role, should be addressed. 2. Specific enforcement and mitigation plans for storm drain and other waste dumping abuse should be addressed. 3. Scenarios for the long-term (post-remediation) plan for ASCON and other waste cleanup sites, consistent with the characteristics of those sites and public safety, should be developed. Ch. 4.9 Land Use and Planning Q. How will the designation of Research and Technology be defined? With the limited parameters discussed in the document, this rezoning seems to be a positive change to encompass a growing field as well as reduce emissions, noise, etc in a positive mam1er for the city. Ch. 4.10 Noise Goal N-2B It appears that this goal allows for a higher than recommended standard for level of exterior noise. Ch. 4.14 Transportation/Traffic and Appendix B. Circulation Traffic Study Planning and Circulation Characterization I. It is noted that the traffic data used to support this element was taken in 2014, before many current high-density developments were completed and impacts on traffic fully realized. While redoing the traffic study for this update may not be feasible, perhaps the EIR should include a more specific estimates of present traffic based on those changes, and indicate any Item 8. -551 HB -766-HB -590-Item 10. - 268 HUNTINGTON BEACH Environmental Board impact on the long-term predictions. If this has been done perhaps the post-2014 update methodology could be describe.din a little more detail. 2. The 2013 Bicycle Master Plan, which is referenced in discussion of bicycle infrastrnctnre, has been recently refened to as outdated. The 2013 bicycle master should be reviewed and updated (or expected updates described) in order to sufficiently infmm the revised General Plan. 4. There is a lack of detail relating to urban run-off and transportation. In addition to being a water quality issue, backed up stonn drains affect road and intersection access and flow during rainy periods. There are several locations in Huntington Beach where this is so predictable that temporary "roadway flooded signs" are placed before the rain begins. The draft EIR mentions the connection, but does not elaborate, and provides no documentation of impacts, or plan to address impacts. 4. The EIR notes several rights of ways which are cmTently considered unlikely to be developed and recommends that they be removed from the Master Plan, effectively eliminating them as potential future projects. The EIR should consider the circumstances under which those potential projects might be beneficial (information which should be available since provision was originally made for those projects), the specific justification for removing these options from the buildout plan, and the potential use and enviromnental impacts of likely alternative use. Neighborhood Circulation: 5. Maintaining/preserving neighborhood character should address sense of place, and quality of life for residents beyond average daily trips, and solely the movement of people from one place to another. 6. The safety of children in and around streets for play, and getting to and from school should be addressed. 7. Areas around schools and parks throughout the City should be considered, where not already so done, as pedestrian zones (PEZ). Local Intersection Mitigation 8. An example of!ocal traffic impacts associated with development (with implications for other intersections similarly affected.): traffic flow at Gothard and Center has already downgraded noticeably since the recent (2016) completion of high density residential development at and near that intersection. Updated traffic measurements are recommended if not already done. Mitigation should be implemented with a suggestion of initial implementation "low impact" changes such as use of protected tmn signals in preference to lane addition. If intersection expansion is necessary, the City is encouraged to base the plan on actual data rather than projections of reduced future demand (in this case, the difference between adding lanes in one direction versus two directions). Development Impacts 9. Parking Capacity (reference Page 4.14-21): While it is desirable to encourage alternative transpmtation modes which reduce the demand for parking, new projects should not rely on this as a justification for reduced parking allotments until such incentives have proven to be effective for existing facilities. HB -767-Item 8. -552 HB -591-Item 10. - 269 HUNTINGTON BEACH Environmental Board Mass Transit 10. The City should work closely with OCTA to develop Transit Centers (including identification of candidate locations) and to otherwise expand infrastructure to accommodate increased use off mass transit including expansion of Park and Ride lots where warranted. 11. The Nmth-South rail line which runs just east of Gothard represents an oppmtunity to connect Huntington Beach with commuter rail lines. The right of way runs close to the Goldenwest Transpo1tation Center making this a natural location for a passenger rail station. The City is encouraged to explore this option with OCTA and the other cities tlu·ough which the right of way would pass. 12. The feasibility and potential benefits of expansion of Huntington Beach shuttle routes and schedules (from a seasonal basis to year round) should be considered. 13. Advanced strategies for on-demand transportation services and other strategies to address specific needs, including senior/disabled access and first mile I last mile options for commuters, should be explored and the impacts on circulation evaluated. Infrastructure for Zero Emission and Autonomous Vehicles Goal CIRC-8: The General Plan gives mention of some of the following technologies. Many are very close or already being implemented, and so we recommend that consideration of the following be given near-term priority. 14. The city should plan to accommodate the upgrade of electrical grid infrastructure for expansion of private battery electric vehicle charging stations, and develop options for an expanded network of public charging stations. The incorporation of charging stations into the base of selected City-owned street light standards is suggested as one option for the latter. 15. The city should suppmt infrastructure (including public signage, and update ofpennitting procedures where needed) for reduced-and zero-emission fuel alternatives including natural gas and hydrogen. 16. The City should update infrastructure as needed to facilitate autonomous vehicles as those standards become available. Appendix C. GHG Inventory Forecast Appendix C, Page 5, Table 1 California Statewide GHG Emissions, 2005 and 2012: Sector "High Global Wanning Potential" -what is included in this sector at our state level? Why does the Huntington Beach Inventory Summary (page 6) not account for this sector or these industries, or activities? Appendix C, Page 10-11, Natural Gas: Because AES Huntington Beach Powerplant resides in our community the emissions output should have Scope I tlu·ough 3 accounted for in the HB GHG inventory, not as an unknown indirect assumption from SCEs electricity use. Appendix C, Page 13, A broad assumption on PHEVs, EVs, and hybrids to interpolated for a 6% increase in vehicle miles traveled. As the data suggests, Transpo1tation may be our Item 8. -553 HB -768-HB -592-Item 10. - 270 HUNTINGTON BEACH Environmental Board biggest issue to resolve since it continues to increase dramatically. Increase use of the PHEV s, EVs, and hybrids should be monitored, and ways to dramatically improve transportation options, and technology should be pursued. Appendix C, Page 23, Reduction Target: Why has HB not committed to a minimum reduction goal of 15% below baseline levels like our neighbors? Appendix F Coastal Resiliency Program All measures are reasonable and we are glad to see multiple measures being recommended for various flood control, sea level rise, and overall resiliency concerns. However, how will these measures be implemented or enforced? Appendix G. GHG Reduction Program 3.2 Local Accomplishments Local accomplishments are strategies taken by the City, local residents, and local businesses that reduce GHG emissions, or support reductions by providing education and resources. Kudos to the City on its accomplishments particularly in setting the example for energy efficiency projects and solar installations and encouraging the community to do the same. The downtown shuttle should be analyzed to see how many miles driven it is reducing and how it can be utilized to reduce even more. I've never heard of the downtown shuttle so perhaps more education of the local population would be appropriate and useful in the off-season. EE-2 -Rental unit retrofits: Improve energy efficiency in residential rental units. Like owner-occupied homes, older rental units are often significantly less energy efficient than newer units. Although renters usually do not have much ability to retrofit their homes, effective partnerships benveen renters and landlords can make these actions easier, more equitable, and beneficial to everyone involved. Improvements to windows and doors, insulation, appliances, and water heaters are examples of options for energy-efficiency retrofits in rental units, and a variety of educational and financing programs make retrofits easier and more affordable. (p.12) An analysis needs to be made of the effect these improvements have on the affordability of the housing. If the rents are raised and/or renters evicted in order to make the improvements, the City's affordable housing goals may be affected. [Are there approaches employed by other cities that have been successful in addressing this issue? -MS] T-2-Shared parking: Use shared parking strategies to maximize development potential while providing a sufficient supply of parking. P. 14 Parking is an important feature for new developments in Huntington Beach, and it is critical to ensure there are enough spaces. However, some developments may only need most HB -769-Item 8. -554 HB -593-Item 10. - 271 HUNTINGTON BEACH Environmental Board of their parking spaces for part of the day. Shared parking allows property owners greater flexibility in the design of their developments and helps avoid creating large parking lots that are empty most of the time, while continuing to provide an adequate supply of off-street parking to meet demand. 2020 GHG Reduction: 1,030 MTC02e 2040 GHG Reduction: 12,740 MTC02e Explain how this creates GHG reductions. Reducing parking because there is an assumption that residents follow the traditional model of driving to work every day, is not acceptable. This policy should not be cast as a GHG strategy unless there is solid data that residents there do not park during the day. In fact, because many people actnally work from home or have nontraditional work schedules, this strategy can increase emissions as people drive around looking for a place to park. Not only is this probably adding to emissions, its underlying assumptions are outdated and should be revisited as a general policy. [Ideally the stndy would look at a range of scenarios to assess an estimated figure for 2040, since we can't be certain what driving patterns will look like. -MS] T-3 -Increased transit ridership: Increase transit ridership to minimize congestion, improve air quality, and promote increased mobility. Public transit is a critical service that allows all people, including those without access to cars, a way to effectively travel within Huntington Beach and to other communities in the region. It also emits fewer GHG emissions per rider than a personal vehicle and reduces congestion on local roadways. Huntington Beach can continue to work with the Orange County Transportation Authority to allow for high-quality public transit that is fast, frequent, predictable, convenient, and safe. Implementation actions would be more effective if they extended to the city working directly with OCTA to develop critical infrastructure and services to make mass transit more viable: Increased Park-and-Ride capacity, development of a rail commuter link using the existing rail line adjacent to the Goldenwest Trasp01tation Center, and solutions (including rideshare, shuttle or other approaches) to effectively address "first mile/last mile" connection between mass transit centers and homes. T-4 -Carsharing: Attract carshare services to Huntington Beach and promote them as a supplemental transportation service. Carshare services, such as Zipcar, provide vehicles to people who may need a second car only occasionally, allowing them to avoid buying a vehicle that may sit unused most of the time. These on-demand services make it easier for residents to have fewer cars, or even to avoid car ownership entirely. Similarly, ride-sourcing services such as Lyft or Uber make it easier for residents to take occasional trips as needed without relying on their own vehicles, and are also a convenient choice for visitors. (p. 15) Item 8. -555 HB -770-HB -594-Item 10. - 272 HUNTINGTON BEACH Environmental Board Explain how the mere fact of non-ownership translates into fewer miles driven and thus GHG reductions. Also, for Uber, Lyft and other "ride-sourcing" services, are the miles driven while waiting for customers accounted for? [Assuming the same passenger miles, total miles driven would increase with ridesharing. There would be some benefit from fewer total vehicles, for reduced parking load. -MS] T-5 Telecommuting and alternative work schedules: Establish telecommuting and alternative work schedules to reduce peak commute traffic. Telecommuting and alternative work schedules provide an alternative to the typical commute for flexible employees and businesses. Alternative work schedules let employees travel outside of the nonnal rnsh hour periods, resulting in a shorter commute time and less congestion, reducing GHG emissions from vehicles. Telecommuting lets workers further reduce their commute by allowing them to work from home for some days in the week, which decreases GHG emissions and can help improve employee satisfaction. (p. 15) How is the City planning to effect this strategy for other than its own forces? [Community Wi-Fi is the one program that directly addresses this. -MS] T-7 -Shuttle service: Provide a year-round shuttle service for visitor destinations. Huntington Beach in the past has provided shuttle service during busy visitor times, such as the Fourth of July or the US Open of Surfing. As feasible, the City can follow the example of many other communities and provide a year-round shuttle that serves Downtown, the beach, and other visitor destinations. This makes it easier for visitors to get around without a car, and can also provide a viable transportation alternative for local residents who work in these areas.(p. 16) 2020 GHG Reduction: 90 MTC02e 2040 GHG Reduction: 60 MTC02e This strategy should be studied to show that it is more than a convenience and reduces miles driven. If the distance and number of riders doesn't impact GHG appreciably, then the service should be categorized as an economic strategy. It would count as a traffic strategy if only there weren't more cars to take the place of the ones taken off the road by this service thus keeping the traffic congestion about the same. [Also, this strategy is viable as a year-round strategy only if economics favor it. This is probably the reason the current service is seasonal. -MS] T-9 -Create a new generation of mass transit users: promote the use of buses and shuttles to middle school students and their parents. To reduce miles driven, reduce traffic congestion around schools and recreation facilities, increase student safety and promote ridership on mass transit, work with OCTA and /or the City shuttle service in the off season to make mass transit an alternative way to get to school. HB -771-Ite1n 8. -556 HB -595-Item 10. - 273 HUNTINGTON BEACH Environmental Board Coordinate with the Huntington Beach City School District to adjust schedules, if needed, and to promote mass transit as a safe and viable way for middle school students to attend school and travel to tutoring, recreational facilities for after school sports, and other extracurricular activities students would attend. As the students move to high school, engage the Huntington Beach Union High School District to do the same for its population. [This would be a positive outcome but requires city/school district supp01i, and also buy-in from parents as well as students. -MS] F-2 -Electric vehicles: Increase electric vehicle adoption in Huntington Beach. Modern electric vehicles (EVs) are a new option for car buyers. They are quieter and cheaper to operate than gasoline or diesel vehicles, do not emit pollution or GHGs, and can increasingly meet the daily needs of many drivers. As the cost ofEVs continues to decline and these vehicles become more popular, the City and regional partners should provide education about EVs and ensure that the local infrastrncture can effectively supp01i them. The City should develop a program to encourage in-home charging stations by a) identifying neighborhoods where the infrastrncture readily supports it, b) creating promotional materials that explain how it can be done, and c) developing standard plans along with a clear, straightf01ward permitting process designed to facilitate pennitting for those facilities. Charging at night reduces the possibility of using more expensive, dirtier energy in the middle of the day. [Extensive deployment of residential charging stations may have some impact on the local electrical grid, however, utilities are already developing plans to incorporate them. Opportunities for expanding the network of distributed public charging stations should be explored; city-owned street light standards represent a possible platfonn. It should also be noted that hydrogen vehicles also represent an electric-drive, zero emission platform. Infrastrncture to suppo1i those vehicles (in particular, fueling stations) should be considered an equivalent technology [from a GHG perspective] with battery electrics. -MS] CA-3 -Shop local: Improve the visibility of locally produced goods in Huntington Beach retail markets. Buying locally produced goods helps a community in multiple ways. It reduces the distance that products have to travel to the store, decreasing congestion and reducing emissions of air pollutants and GHGs. It also helps to keep more revenue in the community, which supports the Huntington Beach economy and benefits local residents and businesses. Additionally, this can help businesses participating in Huntington Beach's Recycling Market Development Zone, which provides economic incentives to businesses using waste materials to produce new goods. While not all goods can be locally sourced, suppo1iing locally produced goods when feasible is environmentally responsible and boosts local economic vitality. (p.28) This measure needs to include a link to accessibility by other modes of transportation such as mass transit, bikes, pedestrians and neighborhood vehicles not just a discussion of buying local Item 8. -557 HB -772-HB -596-Item 10. - 274 HUNTINGTON BEACH Environmental Board and assuming local transportation. There should be a conscious effort to link these alternate modes to local resources. Page 2, Strategy Development: Should an audit or forecast be perfom1ed for the socioeconomic benefit of the strategies (e.g. any and all of the transportation improvements increasing safety and worker productivity)? Page 19, CA-4 THROUGH CA-6 Advanced green technologies, Financing, Workforce Training: these sections should be drafted in parallel to the Appendix L. Economic Development Trends Pages 23-33 Strategy Implementation Actions: Exploration and encouragement language should be stronger (i.e. execute and implement) through finance Appendix I. Citywide Urban Runoff Management Program 1.3 Water Quality Element Table 1-1 Summary of Water Quality Element Programs Quality Planning Area-Based Program Santa Ana River: 1. Evaluate opp01tunities to reduce dry weather flow and reduce diversions 2. Continue to work with OC River Park Project and incorporate water quality enhancement where feasible Talbert Channel: 1. Evaluate opp01tunities to reduce/reuse dry weather flow at Bartlett Park Coastal: 1. Develop expanded education and enforcement programs 2. Continue dry weather flows and infiltration practice where feasible; constrnct flow diversion where not feasible 3. Operate and maintain hydrodynamic separator (CDS) treatment units at beach outfalls 4. Evaluate opportunities to reduce/reuse dry weather flow 5. Enhanced street sweeping and alley cleaning Bolsa Chica Wetlands: HB -773-Ite1n 8. -558 HB -597-Item 10. - 275 Item 8. -559 HUNTINGTON BEACH Environmental Board I. Continue to operate and maintain hydrodynamic separator( CDS) treatment unit at wetland outfall 2. Evaluate opportunities for water quality features in future development/redevelopment on the AERA property Slater Channel: 1. Operate and maintain hydrodynamic separator unit for dry weather treatment at Central Park 2. Optimize water quality benefits of detention area south of Sully-Miller Lake 3. Evaluate opportunities for water quality features in future development/redevelopment East Garden Grove Wintersburg Channel: 4. Evaluate opportunities to reduce/reuse dry weather flow Bolsa Chica Channel: I. Coordinate with Orange County to clean-up and protect channel in vicinity of Marina HS 2. Evaluate opportunities to reduce/reuse dry weather flow in future development/redevelopment including Boeing prope1ty 3. Cooperate with Orange County on projects to improve/restore channels for aesthetics and treatment potential Harbour Area: 1. Continue to work with Orange County to monitor, maintain and improve trash boom collection system 2. Develop and implement expanded education, incentive and enforcement programs n Support a fair and equitable means to upgrade, monitor and inspect existing pump-out facilities and install new pump-out facilities at appropriate locations in Huntington Harbour 3. Evaluate and implement drain in let retrofit opportunities 4. Continue dry weather flow diversion from Scenario Pump Station to OCSD system 5. Implement Memorandum of Understandings (MOUs) with HOAs, OC Sheriff and Peter's Landing for the maintenance of Marina Trash Skimmers. 6. Evaluate the effectiveness of the Marina Trash Skimmers and install additional through grant opportunities. Additional Citywide Opportunities: I. Continue the implementation of full scale state-of-the-mt ilTigation controllers 2. Conduct feasibility study and implement recommendations for constructing trash/gross solids removal device at direct outlets to channels not described above in specific water quality areas 3. Continue working with OCWD on the possibility of using dry weather urban runoff for future seawater balTier injection. 4. Work with local school districts to incorporate retention/detention within HB -774-HB -598-Item 10. - 276 HUNTINGTON BEACH Environmental Board applicable areas (e.g., soccer and baseball fields) The same can be said for: Table 3-5 Table 3-6 Elements Appendix M Fire Response Sum m ary ofN ew The professionalism of the Huntington Beach Fire Department is noted and there is no doubt that they continually update their preparedness for all new situations seriously. For the sake of documentation, there is little discussion of preparation for the fire emergency resources pa1ticular to high rise and high density residential development which has increased in recent years. An update of Appendix M to address this issue and any anticipated increase in equipment/personnel needs would be help in evaluating the overall General Plan Update and EIR. Appendix P Sea Level Rise 10. Recommendations and Conclusions (bullet 1): In several places, the main line of defense against SLR seems to be seawalls, levees and bulkheads. The recommendation for is "additional investigation into seawall/bulkhead infrastructure around Huntington Harbour is recommended to improve accuracy of potential hazard zones." However, section 8.1.3 Huntington Harbour Planning Area, it states that "most seawalls in this planning area are privately owned and vary in type, condition, and elevation." We would like to see stronger language that requires these private seawalls to meet certain building and integrity standards to bring them up to the high SLR prediction to protect public and private assets. 10. Recommendations and Conclusions: Add a recommendation to continue to monitor the SLR levels in the Los Angeles basin every 2 years due to the potential exposure of flooding all along our coastal shores. HB -775-Item 8. -560 HB -599-Item 10. - 277 From: To: Subject: Date: Ms. Villasenor, Lorak@aol.com Villasenor. Jennifer Public Comment on draft of City of H.B.General Plan Update Friday, July 07, 2017 4:52:46 PM I am writing to show my support of the Huntington Beach General Plan item ERC-P.13, which calls for a feasibility study of a Community Choice Aggregation plan. SCE charges the second highest rates in California and 1 would like our city to study the CCA as an alternative. Fostering free market competition leads to lower rates. Also, CCAs can stimulate the development of high tech energy suppliers in Huntington Beach, leading to creation of local jobs. CCAs would allow Huntington Beach to meet its goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, transitioning us to renewable energy and reducing local air pollution. I am asking the City Council to carefully this option. Sincerely, Carol Keane 9432 Leilani Dr. Huntington Beach CA 92646 Ite111 8. -561 HB -776-HB -600-Item 10. - 278 From: To: Subject: Date: Ms. Villasenor, Andrew &Suz Villasenor Jennifer Re: Public Comment on draft of City of Huntington Beach General Plan Update (GPU) Friday, July 07, 2017 7:21:35 PM I write to express tny enthusiastic support of the Huntington Beach General Plan item ERC-P. l 3, \vhich calls for a feasibility study of a Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) plan. Simply put, I prefer to choose my own energy providers. Currently, iny only choice is to purchase energy frotn Southern California Edison, which charges the second-highest rates in California. Co1n1nunity Choice Aggregation is a better alternative, because it would foster free market co1npetition leading to lower rates. In addition, CCAs can stimulate the develop1nent of high-tech energy suppliers \Vithin Huntington Beach, \Vhich \Vould create local jobs and benefit our econo1ny. Moreover, by offering multiple tiers of service with different levels ofrenev.rable energy, CCA would allow Huntington Beach to cheaply and sustainably meet its goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions v.rithout relying on industry or consun1er regulations. The transition to renev.1able energy \Vould also improve local air quality. Finally, if Huntington Beach e1nbraces sustainable energy via CCA, it \Vould reinforce our culture and identity as a "Surf City" that protects beaches by slo\ving sea level rise. Because HB Huddle is comtnitted to individual freedoms, the well-being of Huntington Beach residents, and environmental protection, it follo\VS that we arc committed to CCA as well. Community Choice Aggregation v.,1ill help Huntington Beach tneet its vision of a healthy and safe city in which natural resources are protected (May 2017 draft, General Plan). For exan1ple, the General Plan envisions that in the near future, "local attractions, such as the beach ... draw tourists frotn near and far". In fact) touristn is listed as one of the top e1nployn1ent sectors in the city. Yet, sea level rise threatens most-if not all----ofthe city's beaches. CCA \vould help 111itigate this threat by reducing greenhouse gas etnissions and slowing climate change, \Vhich is the cause of sea level rise. In addition, the city's support of sustainable energy can be used in 1narketing ca1npaigns to reinforce the "Surf City" image and draw additional tourists. The General Plan also envisions that by 2040, "the community has shifted to rene\vable energy resources and conservation practices. Support for local businesses to develop ne\\I technologies leads to the use of these technologies to support further conservation and sustainability." CCA is an econotnically responsible tneans of shifting to renc\vablc energy via free tnarket forces. Futtherrnore, CCA V11ill establish a local market for energy production, v.1hich \Vill lead to the development of new energy technologies \Vithin the city. The shift to rene\vable energy sources will reduce air pollution generated by fossil fuel burning. Impmtantly, CCA would help the city meet its state-mandated requirement to specify tneasures that \vill reduce greenhouse gas emissions. As highlighted in the General Plan, "Although often overlooked, nioden1 life in Huntington Beach \\1ould be very difficult without abundant local and regional energy resources." I e1nphasize that CCA is a responsible and sustainable way to 1neet this in1portant need, and I respectfully requests that the City Council carefully consider this option. Sincerely, Andrew and Suzanne Dehritz Sent from my iPad HB -777-Item 8. -562 HB -601-Item 10. - 279 From: To: Subject: Date: July 7, 2017 Mary Ann Celinder Villasenor Jennifer CCA Friday, July 07, 2017 8:40:58 PM Jennifer Villasenor, Planning Manager City of Huntington Beach Community Development Department 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Public Comment on draft of City of Huntington Beach General Plan Update (GPU) Ms. Vilasenor, I want to encourage decision to move forward with the feasibility study of a Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) plan. Having a choice of energy providers will encourage a shift to renewable energy. Let Huntington Beach lead by example and look to the future. This is in line with the General Plan and be beneficial to the city at large, Sincerely, Mary Ann Celinder 21341 Fleet Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Item 8. -563 HB -778-HB -602-Item 10. - 280 Villasenor, Jennifer From: Sent: To: Subject: From: Bruce Allen Message Body: postmaster@hbthenextwave.org on behalf of noreply@hbthenextwave.org Monday, July 24, 2017 9:53 PM info HB GPU Website Comment Submission The Noise Technical document, Appendix K, the section regarding Aircraft Noise not being an impact is totally incorrect. No aiiport is located in the planning area, and no major flight cmTidors overlie Huntington Beach. Long Beach Airpmi is located approximately 12.5 miles to the nmihwest of the planning area, and John Wayne Airp01i is located approximately 3 .5 miles to the southeast. These represent the closest commercial airports to the plam1ing area (LACALUC 2003; OCALUC 2008). The planning area is not located within the noise contours for either airport. While there are parts of the city that experience direct flyover by aircraft landing at Long Beach Aitpo1i, generally, these aircraft are at sufficient altitude that noise itnpacts typically would not occur. At our home near Graham and Slater, we hear aircraft arrival traffic into LGB aiipmi constantly from morning until !Opm and sometimes later! We hear higher altitude, less noisy, arrivals into LAX 24x7. I and many of my neighbors are quite upset and concerned about this. Long Beach residents are also upset about it. This e-mail was sent from a contact form on Huntington Beach General Plan Update (http://www.hbthenextwave.org) 1 HB -779-Item 8. -564 HB -603-Item 10. - 281 Villasenor, Jennifer From: Sent: To: Subject: postmaster@hbthenextwave.org on behalf of noreply@hbthenextwave.org Tuesday, July 25, 2017 10:26 PM info HB GPU Website Comment Submission From: Connie & Bob Betz Message Body: The section below is no longer accurate. Many neighbors between Edwards and Graham are experiencing a significant increase in aircraft noise. The noise often occurs up to midnight with planes coming in every 10 minutes and is so loud that we ca1111ot hear the television. Other neighbors have complained that they are disturbed when ente1iaining outside because of the loud and constant aircraft noise. It's unclear if the planes are going into Long Beach Aiiport, but that seems the mostly airpmi. We believe there has been a significant increase over the last 2 years and we are now in a flight path. This it is unacceptable. The city needs to measure this and find a way to remediate the noise problem. Aircraft Noise No airport is located in the planning area, and no major flight colTidors overlie Huntington Beach. Long Beach Airport is located approximately 12.5 miles to the nmihwest of the planning area, and John Wayne Airport is located approxiinately 3.5 miles to the southeast. These represent the closest commercial aiipo1is to the planning area (LACALUC 2003; OCALUC 2008). The planning area is not located within the noise contours for either airport. While there are parts of the city that experience direct flyover by ail-craft landing at Long Beach Airpmi, generally, these ail-craft are at sufficient altitude that noise impacts typically would not occur. This e-mail was sent from a contact fotm on Huntington Beach General Plan Update (http://www.hbthenextwave.org) Ite1n 8. -565 HB -780-HB -604-Item 10. - 282 Villasenor, Jennifer From: Sent: To: Subject: From: Mario Tabernig Message Body: postmaster@hbthenextwave.org on behalf of noreply@hbthenextwave.org Wednesday, July 26, 2017 1 :09 AM info HB GPU Website Comment Submission On your DRAFT NOISE TECHNICAL REPORT in Vokume -lll-Apendix K the following paragraph was printed. "Aircraft Noise No airp01t is located in the planning area, and no major flight corridors overlie Huntington Beach. Long Beach Airport is located approximately 12.5 miles to the n01thwest of the planning area, and John Wayne Airpmt is located approximately 3.5 miles to the southeast. These represent the closest commercial airports to the planning area (LACALUC 2003; OCALUC 2008). The planning area is not located within the noise contours for either airport. While there are parts of the city that experience direct flyover by aircraft landing at Long Beach Airpott, generally, these aircraft are at sufficient altitude that noise impacts typically would not occur." Not correct The entire paragraph is wrong starting with the distances to airports. Also the aircraft landing at Long Beach in most cases are below 1800 feet above sea level. There is a difference between an aircraft flying at 1600 feet and the same plane flying at 2100. We are trying the city counsel to help with this problem for a long time and now we see that the problem is kicked aside. You need to amend this section completely. There is a report the city commissioned about 10 years ago about this same problem. This e-mail was sent from a contact form on Huntington Beach General Plan Update (http://www.hbthenextwave.org) HB -781-lte1n 8. -566 HB -605-Item 10. - 283 Villasenor, Jennifer From: Sent: To: Subject: From: Mario Tabemig Message Body: postmaster@hbthenextwave.org on behalf of noreply@hbthenextwave.org Wednesday, July 26, 2017 9:55 AM info HB GPU Website Comment Submission Please Verify your assessment of the aircraft noise on Volume -lll-Appendix -K-Noise Technical Report -Page 5-under Aircraft Noise. Planes Landing at Long Beach had been a point of sharp problem for many years. Neighbor groups had complain to the city and ask for help. 10 years ago the city commissioned a study of the problem and made some very good recommendations. However this recommendations were never acted upon. Now I 0 years later the problem became more frequent as more daily flights were added. Also planes are flying a lower approach constantly at or below 1600 f above sea level by the intersection of Bolsa Chica and Edinger . A sharp decline since the 2100 feet needed to sustain a 3 degrees approach slope. As you see there is a problem with the planing rep01i. This e-mail was sent from a contact form on Hm1tington Beach General Plan Update (http://www.hbthenextwave.org) Item 8. -567 HB -782-HB -606-Item 10. - 284 Esparza, Patty From: Sent: To: Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Thursday, September 07, 2017 12:09 PM Pipeline Clerk Agenda Subject: Surf City Pipeline: You have been assigned a new Request#: 30935 Request# 30935 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to you. Request type: Problem Request area: City Council -Agenda & Public Hearing Comments Citizen name: Albert Ross Description: Comments offered as a critique of your proposed update City of Huntington Beach Proposed General Plan Amendment N0.14-002/Environmental Impact Plan Report N0.14-001 (General Plan Update) Expected Close Date: September 8, 2017 Click here to access the request Note: This message is for notification purposes only. Please do not reply to this email. Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored. 1 HB -783-Item 8. -568 HB -607-Item 10. - 285 Ted Ross RECEIVED 2811 SEP -7 PH 12: 27 CITY CLERK 9/7/2017 8111 Falmouth Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92646-2015 ClTY OF . City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk 2000 Main Street HUNTINGTON 0£1>.CH Huntington Beach, CA 92648-2702 Attention: Robin Estanislau, City Clerk Reference: City of Huntington Beach Proposed General Plan Amendment N0.14- 002/Environmental Impact Plan Report N0.14-001 (General Plan Update) Comments offered as a critique of your proposed update: Volume 1 Draft General Plan: Ite1n 8. -569 1) Page 1-2 "Key Facts" Inserted data. Comment on the source; "4) Stanley R. Hoffman Associates" was included without qualifications to provide such data. You would be far better served by using know qualified sources for reference data such as State and Federal entities that specialize in providing such data. 2) General plan uses seriously flawed economic data/analysis. It completely ignores the City's Unfunded Pension Liability and the growing crisis of Ca/PERS declining earning thru Investments. 3) Page 1-4 Paragraph on "Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy" & sentence: "The RTP was adopted in 2017 and is updated every four years to address regional transportation needs. The General Plan must be consistent with these regional planning efforts." Comment: Since Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is not an elected entity perhaps you need to state how the RTP is actually authorized and how The Huntington Beach General Plan must be consistent with it? I do not believe the electorate has ever been asked to concur with this arrangement? 4) Page 2-24. "Table LU-1 General Plan Distribution of Land Uses". Comment: Data source is unreferenced and should be added for clarity. 5) Page 2-25. "Table LU-2 General Plan Development Capacity''. Comment: Data source is unreferenced and should be added for clarity. 6) Page 3-19. "Figure CJRC-4" Comment: How is the data shown in Figure CIRC-4 subject to change by OCTA updated? Perhaps this should be time dependent in some reference so updates can be easily made to reflect the latest OCTA plans & implementation of Bus routes? 7) Page 4-15. "Figure CJRC-4''. Comment: Data source is unreferenced and should be added for clarity. 8) Page 4-22. "Table ERC-6 Current and Forecasted Energy Use". Comment: For the data set 2005 & 2012 Data source is unreferenced and should be added for clarity. 9) Page 4-38. "Paragraph dealing with "Goal ERC-13. Increase both distributed generation and utility renewable energy sources within municipal and community-wide practices. Sub-item F) "Support Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) feasibility studies." Comment: Seriously object to this statement, neither the City Council nor the residents/electorate has authorized such an effort. The City has no role to play in providing and ensuring public power utilities. This is presumptuous and needs to be stricken from the EIR and considerations in the General Plan HB -784-HB -608-Item 10. - 286 Update unless the Electorate has:authorizecHhis new concept for Public Utilities. As stated in the GP it appears that City st~ff has ~ssumed th~t.this is a suitable objective and that it should be favored. This just isn't the case and places the City in a potential high risk position for assuming utilities rate control and pr~vlding ,fpr common consumption in times of economic peril I · " '' · ' · 10) Page 8-6. "LU-P.10. Affordable Housing Ensure that Huntington Beach has a sufficient supply of housing for individuals and families of all incomes, including extremely low-and very low- income residents. Meet or exceed the target number of affordable units specified in the city's Regional Housing Needs Allocation." Comment: I thought this was settled by Mike Gates, City Attorney, that the City of Huntington Beach is not subject to the implied reference to the Kennedy Commission; "target number ofaffordable units specified in.the city's Regional Housing Needs Allocation. c• 11) Page 8-32. "ERC-P.13. Community Choice Aggregation". Comment;-Seriousiy object to this statement, neither the City Council nor the residents/electorate has authori~ed such an effort. The City has no role to play in providing and ensuring public utilities. This is presumptuous and l).eeds to be stricken from the EIR and considerations in the General Plan Update unless the Electorate has authorized this new concept foriPL\blic Utilities. As stated in the GP it appears that City staff has assumed that this is a sultabli!'objective and that it should be favored. This just Isn't the case and places the City In a potential high risk position fo'r assuming utilities rate control and providing for common consumption in times of economic peril! (Repeat!). Comments to Draft EIR Volume 2: 1) Page 2-34. "MM4.10-5 Prior to issuance of construction permits, applicants for new development projects within 500 feet of noise-sensitive receptors will implement the following best management practices to reduce construction noise levels". Comment: This is the item I spoke to during the last public review where I pointed the potential damage to infrastructure roads from construction noise generated by hauling trucks inducing long -term cumulative .structural fatigue to roadways by low frequency sound caused by trucks during the haul Ing process. This can be mitigated by in part the use of specifications requiring trucks be equipped with Air -ride suspension systems. 2) Where items flagged In my General Plan comments have corresponding items within the EIR Volume 2 these comment have direct applicability to those Items also. 3) Several references are made as to source data provided by Michael Baker International,. but no qualifying explanation is provided. Since this must be some sort of private consulting firm what are their qualifications to provide such data. Why haven't appropriate Government agencies specifically chartered to provide source data been used as references? Furthermore, what pedigree does Michael Baker International; have in using their data in the past as compared to actual achieved results? 4) Paragraph 2.6.1: " .............. lower level of growth that is reasonably forecast based on the Huntington Beach Traffic Model, which was updated for the 2013 Circulation Element Update, and accounting for existing conditions within the city of Huntington Beach and the goals and policies of the existing General Plan (1996)" . Comment: Since It Is quite obvious to those who travel Huntington Beach Streets this statement needs lots of work; starting with a new Huntington Beach Traffic Model that takes in to account the obvious Impact of the new high density housing traffic Increases that seem to have caught everyone off guard!. HB -785-Ite1n 8. -570 HB -609-Item 10. - 287 5) Transportation/Traffic: "General Plan Update Goal CIRC-1: The circulation system supports existing, approved, and planned land uses while maintaining a desired level of service and capacity on streets and at critical intersections.". Comment: It isn't happening now so what makes you think it will be alright in the future? You can't keep up with the needs for infrastructure maintenance with robbing peter to pay Paul so how will this be accomplished in the future. Fiscal trends for both city and State would seem to argue for the contrary. What new resources will be made available that don't exist now? 6) Transportation/Traffic: "General Plan Update Goal CIRC-1: The circulation system supports existing, approved, and planned land uses while maintaining a desired level of service and capacity on streets and at critical intersections.". Comment: It isn't happening now so what makes you think it will be alright in the future? You can't keep up with the needs for infrastructure maintenance with robbing peter to pay Paul so how will this be accomplished In the future. Fiscal trends for both city and State would seem to argue for the contrary. What new resources will be made available that don't exist now? 7) "ERC-15.C: Evaluate participation in Orange County Water District's recycled water program, and explore opportunities for the city to produce Its own recycled water for use within the community." Comment: This Is very important; very effort should be made to fully participate in Orange County Water District's recycled water program to the maximum extent possible. 8) "ERC-13.F: Support Community Choice Aggregation (CCA} feasibility studies" Comment: Seriously object to this statement, neither the City Council nor the residents/electorate has authorized such an effort. The City has no role to play in providing and ensuring public utilities. This is presumptuous and needs to be stricken from the EIR and considerations in the General Plan Update unless the Electorate has authorized this new concept for Public Utilities. Comments for Volume-1111-Appendix-P-Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment: Ite1n 8. -571 1) This analysis is basically flawed from the outset by using old stale data. For example, it falls to recognize that a rather significant event has occurred in Antarctica on July 17 2017; A new "Trillion-Ton Iceberg broke off the Larson Ice Shelf! Certainly this event has biased and accelerated the Coastal Flooding projected by the Consultant analysis yet they have no mention of this event and its' impact. Ted Ross Huntington Beach Resident HB -786-HB -610-Item 10. - 288 /?t_.6v<-~1A.J <P # cF 9 -/d7 -c}CJ/ 7 RECErVED ~Kennedy COMMISSION September 18 , 2017 2017 SEP 18 PH 3: I 9 CITY CLERK CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEA C!-1 Mayor Barbara Delgleize and C ity Council Members City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RE : Comments on Huntington Beach's General Plan Update -Land Use Element Dear Mayor Delgleize and City Council Members, ww w.kennedyco mmi ssi on.org 177 01 Co m m Ave .. Suite 200 Irvin e. CA 92614 949 250 0909 Fu x 949 263 06 47 The Kennedy Commission (the Commission) is a coa lition of residents and community organizations that advocates for the production of homes affordable for familie s earning less than $20 ,000 arurnally in Orange County. Fonned in 2001 , the Commission has been successful in paitnering with Orange County juris dictions to cre ate effective housing policies that have led to the new construction of homes affordable to lower income working families . Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the City of Huntington Beach's General Plan Update. We have reviewed the draft and are submitting this letter to provide public comments . As the City moves forward with the update, the Commission urges the City to continue its support for the development of affordable homes and consider the following : 1. R evise Goal LU-4 Policy A to read as: Encourage a mix ofresidential types to acconuuodate people with diverse housing n eed s at all income le vel s . 2. Revise Goal LU-4 Policy E to read as: Encourage housing opportunities for all economic segments o f the community to be located in proximity to employment to reduce vehicle miles traveled. 3 . Include a s tand-alone po licy unde r Goal L U -4: Encourage the development of affordable homes for lowe r inc o me households and worke rs in the City. 4. Ensure the update of the General Plan is cons is tent with the Housing El e ment pursuant to Section 6 5 300.5 of the State Goverrune nt Code. Ranked a m o ng the top ten leas t affordable metropolita n areas in the country, Orange County is suffering from a n a ffordable hou sing cri sis. A resident must ea rn at lea s t $34.87 per hour to afford a two-bedroom apartment at a fair market rent of $1 ,813 a month . 1 As r ents and the numbe r of r esidents needing affordable homes have continually increased, the number of afford a ble homes being built for lower income households has not kept up with the demand. An additiona l I 09,965 affordable rental homes are needed to addres s Orange County's housing needs for lower income renter s . 2 1 Out o r Re nc h 20 17-The Hi gh Cost or I-l ousi ng. Nati onal Low In co me Ho usin g Conlitio n, p.38. 201 7. 2 Orange County Remcrs in Cri sis: A Call for Ac ti on, Cnli lbrnin Ho using Partn ership Corp orati on, p. I, May 2017 . . . ~ .. . Working for systemic ch11ngc resulting in t he produclion of homes afforllahle lo Ornnge County's extremely low -income households HB -611-Item 10. - 289 Dear Mayor Delgleize and City Council Members September 18 , 2017 Page 2 of2 Burdened by th e high cost of housing, on a single night in January 2017, nearly 4,800 people experienced homelessness in Orange County.3 The need to address this crisis is urgent, especially for homeless children. During the 2015 to 2016 school year, 28,450 students in grades Pre-K tlu·ough 12th grade were identified as homeless living in w1stable environments in the Orange County school districts.4 In addition, according to the recent re lease of the Cost Study of Homelessness, close to $300 million was spent to address homelessness in Orange County during 2014 to 20 15.5 Studies have shown that affordable housing coupled with supportive services is a cost-efficient intervention that will safely house individuals experiencing c hronic homelessness. With high housing costs and significant lack of affordable homes, many workers and families , especially those who earn lower wages, strnggle financially to live in the city they work in. These impacts not only hurt workers and fan1ilies but may a lso impact the city's economic competitiveness and attractiveness to major employers to provide jobs. Locating homes, specifically affordable homes, near transit, job centers and neighborhood services will decrease travel costs and a llow individuals to save money and spend it elsewhere in the City. In particular, the environmental impacts of a development are especially less drastic when a person can afford to live and spend their money in the same conununity in which they work in. Jn 2017, the average commute time to work for Orange County residents was approximately 30 minutes and approximately 87% of commuters drove alone. 6 Improving location accessibility and connectivity reduces the dependency for residents, especially for lower income households and workers, to drive their automobiles. This will lead to decreased envirorunental impacts , such as vehic les miles traveled (VMT) and greenhouse gas emissions, which will contribute to the project's overall purpose and intent to create a sustainable transit oriented neighborhood. The General Plan will also align with the Sustainable Communities and C limate Protection Act of 2008 (SB 375) and help the City implement and comply with SB 375 goals ofreducing VMT and greenhouse gas emissions. Please keep us informed of any revisions, updates and meetings regarding the City's General Plan Update . If yo u have any questions , please contact me at (949) 250-0909 or cesarc@kennedycomrnission.org. Sincerely, Cesar Covrurnbias Executive Director 'Ornnge County Poi nt in Time Count 2017. Cou nty of Orange, Mny 2017 . 'OC Commun it y In dicators 2017 , Child ren and Famili es Commi ss ion of Ora n g~ Co unty. p. 34, May 2017 . ~Cos t Stud y or Hom eless ness Execu ti ve Summ ary, Orange County United Wa y, Jamboree nnd Univ ersit y ofCnlifomin. Irvine. p. 2. March 2017 . • Profile of Huntin gton Beuc h. Southern California Assoc iati on of Gov emment s, p. 22. Mn y 201 7. HB -612-Item 10. - 290 Ocean View School District "Equity and Excelfence" 17200 Pinehurst Lane, Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Tel: 714 847-2551 Fax: 714 847-1430 Web: www.ovsd.org September 15, 2017 VIA EMAIL Superintendent Carol Hansen, Ed. 0 . Mayor Barbara Delgleize and Members of City Council CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re : City Council Public Hearing 9-18-2017, Item 8 Program Environmental Impact Report No. 14-001 General Plan Amendment No. 14-002 Board OfTrustees Gina Clayton-Tarvin, President Jack C. Souders, Vice President John Briscoe, Clerk Joseph Gaglione, Member Norm Westwell, Member Dear Mayor Barbara Delgleize and Members of the City Council: The Ocean View School District requests that the City Council remove Policy ERC-2 F from the General Plan Update concerning after school hours public access to playgrounds and playing fields that was added by the Planning Commission in its recommendation to the City Council. Policy ERC-2 F reads as follows: Work with the school districts to encourage after school access to playgrounds and playing fields on school properties. There are many reasons why the school district may restrict public access to its properties, including security for facilities, school employees, and students participating in after-hour programs; maintenance cost to facilities and grounds; and prevention of vandalism. Currently, the school district has deemed it necessary to restrict after school p ublic access to several school sites . We request that this policy be removed from the General Plan Update because use of school properties is the sole responsibility and authori ty of the school district. Thank you for your cons ideration of our request. Sincerely, tr~ Carol Hansen , Ed .D . Superintendent, Ocean View School District SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION ;:iieeting oate:. __ V'l__..,J ..,;.1 ..... Cf>....,,}_rJ~-- Agenda Item No . ._: ___ "6 .... ____ _ cc: Gina Clayton-Tarvin, President, Ocean View School District Boa rd of Trustees Robin Estanislau, City Clerk, City of Huntington Beach Jennifer Villasenor, Planning Manager, City of Huntington Beach HB -613-Item 10. - 291 220002100020000190001800017000160001500014000100009000800070006000500040003000 18 36 1 8 36 60 60 60 18 18 36 17 17 14 5 3 3 5 15 6 5 14 12 27 27 26 33 27 27 30 2332 21 32 27 26 20 32 26 26 32 26 32 24 31 20 48 54 42 54 41 54 45 45 54 48 486684 63 84 96 78 66 3 6 OS-P CG CN CG RM CV CN CN CO RM OS-R OS-R OS-R CN RM P PS(RL)CN OS-S OS-S PS(RMH) P OS-P CN RM RM CN I-sp I-sp RL PS(RL) RL PS(RL) PS(RL)RMP RM RMH RH-sp(30 du/ac) OS-P OS-P PS(RL) RL PS(RL) CN CN CN PS(RL)PS(RL)RL CG RL P M-sp(35 du/ac) I M-sp(1.5FAR/ 25 du/ac) RT PS(I) RT PS(RL) RL RMH RH(30 du/ac) RLRM RM RL CV OS-WRM I OS-P RMHCN CN CN CN CN PS(CN) CN OS-P OS-P RM OS-P OS-P OS-P RMHO S-S R MR M H PS(RL)RL RM CG OS-PPS(RM) CG RMH RL PS(RL) PS(RL) CG PS(RL) RL RMHRM RM-sp RM CG RM CG RMH PS(RL)CG CG CG RM RMHCN CN CN CN OS-P OS-P RL OS-POS-P HRM RM RL PS(RL)RL RL RMH CG OS-P RL PS(RL)CG RM P RMH PS(RM) RMRL RL RMH PS(RMH)RMHRM RM OS-P PS(RM)RT RT RT RL P PS(RL) CG RMHCG PS(RL)RMHCN RMH I CN RM CN OS-P CGRMH RL RM RMH RMH RL RM RM RL RL RL RL RL RL RM RM RMRL RLRMHRM RMPS(RM)I CG RMH RMHRMHIRT RM RM CG CNCG CG HCO RMH RMH CG CV P.C.RES#1301RM RMH RL RM RMH RM RM RM I RL RM RM PS(RM) OS-P RM OS-PCORL P PS(RL)CG RM OS-P CG RMH PS(RL)CGRMCG RMH RL PS(RL) PS(RL) RMH RM RMH OS-PRMH RMHRMP OS-P RM RM RMHCNRLR MPS(RL) RMCV OS-POS-P CO OS-PI I P O S-S PS(OS-P) RL RM I OS-P RL RMH RMH RT P RL-sp(3 du/ac)RL-sp(4 du/ac)CN-sp M-sp(15 du/ac) RM-sp RL-sp RM RMHRL CV-sp RL RL RL P CO OS-PRMH RMH RL RMRMOS-P OS-P RMHRL RMH RMH CG OS-PRMH PS(RL)RMHCV-spRH(30 du/ac) OS-P OS-PH RMH RM RMH PS(RMH)PS(RM)RM RMH PS(RL) PS(RL) RL RL CG CG PS(RL) CG RMHCG CN CN PS(RL) CGRMH RM RM RMH RMCN CG CN PS(RL) P RL CGCN RM RMH RT I RL P CG CG PS(RL) PS(RL) CG OS-P OS-PRL RL CNPS(RL)CN RL RM PS(RL) RMHRMRMRM RMH RM RM RMOS-S-sp OS-S-sp M-sp(30-50 du/ac) RH-sp RMH RMH RMH RH-sp CN RL RL RL RL RL RM RM RMH RMH PS(RL)PS(RL)RL RL RL OS-P RM RM-spI OS-S OS-S OS-S CN PS(RL) CG RL RMH OS-P P RMRM PS(RL) RL RL CGCGPS(RM)CN CG RM PS(RL) RMH RL OS-PP(RMH)OS-C os-c OS-C RL-sp RM OS-P OS-R I I-405 PS(RL) RT PS(RM) P(I) OS-P PS(RL) OS-P OS-P CN CN RMH RMH RMHRL RMRH(30 du/ac)RMHRM RM OS-PRL RL OS-P PS(RL) RL RL RMPS(CG) CG CG RMH RL PS(RL)RH(30 du/ac) RL RMH M-sp(25 du/ac)RL OS-S R M H RMRL P P RL RMH RMH PS(CG) P RL RMH RMH RL RL RL OS-P RL RH-sp P RLHCV RL RL OS-P HRMHOS-P HH OS-P H OS-PRMHHHHOS-PMH P os-c I RM CG RT M-spM-sp M-sp M-sp M-sp M-sp M-sp M-spCG M-spM-spCGM-sp M-spM-sp M-spM-sp M-spCG M-spM-sp M-spM-sp CG CG OS-PM-spM-spM-sp M-sp M-sp M-sp M-sp M-sp M-spM-sp M-sp M-spM-spM-spOS-P OS-C CN OS-P RL OS-PRL RMH RL RM RL RL RL RMOS-P RM I PS(RL) PS(RL) CG RT RT RT RL CGRMH RT RT RL RL RLRL Not Certified by the California Coastal Com mission RL-sp RMH RT RL CGOS-P RM CG RL RL P P PS(RL) RMHOS-PCG PS(RM)PS(RM)PS(RM)CNPS(RL) OS-S-sp RL RL RL CV OS-C RM CGRT RL RLRL RL RL P-sp RL RLOS-WRL RMH RL RL RL-sp RL RL RM OS-P OS-P PS(RT)RT PS(RM)OS-P P OS-P P-spOS-P RL(4du/ac) CG-sp OS-P-spRM-sp RM-sp I-sp OS-P-sp RMH-sp RM-sp RL-sp M-sp(1.75FAR/ 45 du/ac) PS-sp(RL-3 du/ac) RM-sp RL-sp RL-sp I-sp RM-sp RM-sp CN-sp I-sp RMH-sp RMH-sp CV-sp(3.0 FAR) CV-sp(3.0 FAR) RH-sp(30 du/ac)CV-sp RH-spRH-spM-sp(30-50 du/ac)RH-spOS-S-sp RH(30 du/ac) OS-P-sp CV-mu-sp OS-S-sp CV-m u-sp CV-mu-sp RH-sp RH-sp P-sp P-sp OS-S-sp RH-sp CV-mu-spRH-sp P-sp P-sp RH-sp RH-sp RH-sp RH-sp RH-sp CV-mu-sp CV-mu-sp CV-mu-sp Not Certified by the California Coastal Commission PS(RL) OS-P Chesapeake Ln.Havenhurst Ln.Tuckahoe Cir.Brookline Cir.Delafield Cir.Ashworth Cir.Aragon Cir.Mauretania Cir. Oronsay Cir. Sunday Dr. Kamuela Dr. Halawa Dr. Pago Pago Cir.Kipahulu Ln.Tana Dr. Cook Cir. Sherry Cir.Pauline Ln.Drybank Dr. Kingsdale Dr. Heatherton Cir. Willhelm Cir.Baywater Ln.Topside Cir. Windlass Dr.Brookside Dr. Wadebridge Cir.Coenson Cir.SafeharborLn.Jana Wichita Ave. Venice Ave. Jay Cir.Alsuna Ln.14thSt.13th St. Hill St.Shipley St.NewhavenLn.19th St.21st St.11th St.13thSt.15th St.Main St.5th St.7th St.9th St.3rd St.Melinda Cir. Mokihana Dr. Rockpoint Dr.Windsong Cir.Iolani Cir.WallingfordLn.Drumbeat Dr. Southshore Dr.Seaside Ln.Alii Cir.Cocobana Ln.Indigo Cir.Chubasco Ln.Red Jacket Cir.Panacea Dr. Blackfin Cir.Marino Ln.Satterfield Dr.ChelseaLn.St Augustine Dr. El Capitan Dr.Suburbia Ln.Aquatic Ln.Dragon Cir. Chance Cir.Balgair Cir.La Cresta Cir. Saline Dr. Silver Strand Dr. Castlegate Dr.Skimmer Ln.Five Harbors Dr. Strathcona Dr. Scougall Cir. Paddock Cir. Guss Dr. Rocky Mountain Dr. Bay Meadow Dr.Viva Cir.Mary Cir.Alicante Ln.Mission Ln.Heron Cir. Crane Cir.Farnsworth Ln.Seabird Cir. Evelyne Cir.Mataro Ln.Varas Cir. Cape Newbury Dr. Ebbtide Cir. Northport Dr.Vintage Ln.Imperial Cove Ln.Gallant Dr. Midbury Dr. Afton Cir. Haxton Cir. Oxley Cir.Sherborne Ln.Hayes Cir. Tyler Cir. Polk Cir.Cato Cir.Dallas Cir. Doremere Dr. Bellmead Dr. Mossford Dr. Lowmead Dr. Larkport Dr. Compton Dr.Rumford Ln.Hurstwell Dr. Ancho rage Dr.Helena Cir.Windward Ln.Dolphin Dr. Crawford Cir.ColdwaterLn.BowmanLn.LeecrestLn.Gettysburg Dr. Pioneer Dr. Coral Cir. Skiff Cir. Bosun Cir.Trident Ln.Shore Cir. Shoal Cir.Roderick Ln.Occidental Ln.Warfield Dr.Rumsey Ln.Potomac Ln.Veering Cir. Findley Cir. Deep OfeliaLn.Presi dioDr.PresidenteDr.Stern Ln.LawsonLn.M e redith Dr. Garden Cir.FoxdaleCir.Church Cir.Bayhill Ln.Avondale Ln.Stonehurst Ln.P ageantD r.CherryhillLn.Port Clyde Dr. Hatteras Dr.YarmouthLn.BretonLn.BanffLn.CrestAve. Pecan Ave. Acacia Ave.FramptonCir.MorningTide D r . Cir.Bethel Cir.DeepHarborDr. 10th St. 11thSt.1st St.Georgia St.California St.Toronto Ave. UticaAve. RochesterAve. Austin Dr. Truxton Dr.Drew Cir.Sealargo Ln.BluffsideCir.Regal Cir.Catamaran Ln.Homestead Ln.Burnham Cir.Harpoon Cir.Seacrest Ln.PinetreeLn.Compass Ln.Lombardy Ln.Poe Dr. Ivy Cir.Flagstone Ln.Camfield Ln.Bedel Dr.Antigua Ln.Kausch Cir.Breakwater Cir. Allison Cir. Doral Dr.GreenfieldLn.Royal Grove Dr.Deguelle Cir.OceanBluffBrabham Dr. Garrett Cir. Moore Cir.Clancy Ln.Mediterranean Dr. Zion Cir.Kenworth Cir.Lapworth Cir.Queens Park Ln.Orient Dr. Dana Dr.Hagerstown Cir.Binghampton Cir.Shepherd Ln.EveningBreezeCir.Kiowa Ln.Landfall Dr. Beachside Dr.Hilaria Cir.Saluda Cir.Dirigo Cir.Branta Cir.Baybreeze Dr. Biscayne Ct.Powell Ln. TulareDr.Oc ean He i g h ts L n. Ocean Terrace Dr. Su r fc o v e C ir .Surfview Dr. Su r fl a n d in g L n .Surfpoint Cir.OakdaleLn.ElmridgeLn.S u rf waveDr . Surfset Dr.Surfboard Cir.Surf Dr.Mai ds to n e L n .Me adow o o d Cir.ArchfieldLn.Win g e d fo ot C ir.Cam elb a c k D r.Fir e sto n e C ir.Coldstream Ln.Torreypi nes Cir.17th St.Acacia Ave. Pecan Ave. Walnut Ave.Ea gl e cre st Dr.IronwoodLn.Pacific Coast Hwy. Olive Ave. Oakbrook Cir. Cir. Gleneagles SawgrassLn. G lenfalls D r.FernwoodDr.Ch e rry hillLn. RiverdaleLn. Castle wood Cir. Mountain vi e wL n . Whitemarsh Dr.BrooktrailPanoramaDr.WoodlandsDr.PalmAve.MayfieldCir.C lo v e rwoodCir.S u mmer G rov eLn. L n .Silvera do D r. MacgregorCir. WoodlandsDr.Woodl andsDr. Princeville Cir. TurnberryCir.GrandviewCir.Lexie Cir.Oakcrest Cir.Festival Cir.Cir.SummerwoodSugarberryCir.Cal l awayCir.Summit Dr. DogwoodDr.Surfbreaker Ln.Seacliff Ln.Poppy Hill Cir.PeppermillLn.Sunnyside Cir. Braddock Cir.Peninsula Ln.FoxglenLn.Glenview Cir. Garland Cir. LynwoodLn.PeninsulaLn.O akh urs t Cir. Fremont Cir. Elder w o o d Ci r . S ummitDr.Beacon Hill Ln.JasmineDr. ForesterDr.LittleHarborDr.IslandBayLn.EveningHillDr.ManorPointCir.Joice Ln.Continental Dr. Christmas Dr. SanNico lasC ir.Arrow Ln.Centerstone Dr.Sealpoint Ln.BayfrontLn.Waterford Ln.Mainsail Dr. Racepoint Dr.Seabright Ln.Billingsgate Ln.Reilly Dr. Puerto Dr. Snowbird Dr.Treasure Cir.Cir. Amador Lancelot Ln.Winterwood Cir. Westcliff Dr.CharwoodLn.Ln.KimberwickBrookdale Ln.Harcourt Cir. Hingham Dr.Lantern Ln.Cohasset Ln.Montauk Cir.Oceanwood Dr.Snug HarborSki Harbor Cir.Sea Mist Ln.ShellHarborCir.Beachwood Ln.Half League Dr.InteriorLn.McKinley Ln.Glacier Cir.Crater Cir.Rainier Cir. Cathay Cir. Smokey Cir.Castle Rock Cir.Clearwood Cir.Whitetree Cir.Graystone Ln.Alisa Ln.Lures Ln.Sidcup Ln.Lures Ln.ReederLn.Sidcup Ln.Derbyshire Ln.Cornwall Dr.Barcelona Ln.Rotterdam Ln.Sunbreeze Dr.Ash Ln.EmeraldLn.OakLn.Crista Palma Dr.BeckwallLn.Montbury Cir.Berlark Cir.Misty Ln.Marina View Pl.Orion Dr. Stellrecht Cir. King Cir.James Cir.Lynn Ln.Hermanson Cir.Leslie Ln.Chase Dr. Gables Warmington Ln.Davis Cup Dr. Racquet Club Dr. Fisher Dr.Forest Hills Ln.Rogers Dr.Herbert Ln.KernD r.Brannen Dr.GriffinLn.Jamestown Ln.Georgetown Ln.Luciento D r.Ghent Dr. Dorita Dr. Tilburg Dr. Nordina Dr.Malta Cir.Seapine Cir.Curtis Cir. Tortuga Dr.Greenleaf Ln.Vineland Dr. Glenroy Dr.Camelot Cir.Pleasant Cir.St Andrews Ln.ApelLn.Whitford Ln.PortsideCir.ShamleyCir.Palo Alto Dr. Norino Dr.Taurus Ln.Gate Hill Cir.Sicily Cir. Sandpebble Cir. SilverBeachCir. Harbor Key Cir. Country Cir.Quietsands Cir.Cambria Cove Cir. Starfish LnSeal Cir.GreenbrierDr.SeaCanyonCir.Seawind Cir.SandcastleLn.Seagull Ln. S e a w a y SurfsideDr. Har borDr.ShorecliffLn.O cea n a ire C ir . Riptide Cir.Windjammer Ln.CoastlineLn.Seashark AguaD r.Waterview Ln.MaritimeLn.Havenrock Dr. Milano Dr. R o ma Dr. Mast Dr.PierpointDr.Newfoundland Cir.Cir.BarHarborLn.Scenic Bay Ln.Quiet SurfCir.Cir. Walnut Ave. Olive Ave. Walnut Ave. Olive Ave.Townsquare Ln. Pierside Cir. Olive Ave.Walnut Ave. Acacia Ave. ElmcrestLn. Pecan Ave.11thSt.13thSt.12thS t.Park St.Pine St.Loma Ave.Mai n St.AspenwoodLn.Park St.Park St.Argyle Dr.Cambridge Ln.Claremont Ln.Argyle Dr.Inverness Ln.Kingswood Ln.Aberdeen Dr.Aberdeen Dr.Cambridge Ln.Inverness Ln.Kingswood Ln.Berkshire Ln.Devonshire Dr. CornwallDr. Devonshire Dr. CornwallDr. Bond Cir. Frederick Cir. Constitution Dr.Education Ln.Rockland Ln.Innsbruck Dr. Woodlawn Dr.Hartsdale Cir.Tibbett Ln.Telhan Dr. Bickley Dr. Pettswood Dr.Elmsford Ln.Bromley Ln.Warburton Dr. Tide Cir.Fair Brigantine Ln.Weakfish Ln.Salmon Ln.Bluegill Cir.Catfish Cir.Perch Cir.Carp Cir.Walleye Ln.Stingray Ln.Tigerfish Cir.Bass Dr. Albacore Dr.Bluefin Ln.Windridge Ln.Kukui Dr. Pua Dr. Glenwood Dr.Chalet Ln.Northridge Ln.Vanguard Ln.Sherm a n Dr.Sabre Ln.Cortez Dr.Able Ln.Oceanus Dr.Triton Ln.Newsboy Cir.Jason Cir.Andaman Ln.Galway Cir. Caspian Cir.Pipeline Ln.Memphis Ave. Nashville Ave. Coral Reef Dr.Hillcrest Cir.Riverview Cir.LakesideLn.Backbay Cir.Oceanhill Dr.Anna Ln.Alondra Dr. Amber Dr.Alpine Ln.ApplecrossLn.Arch Ln.AprilDr.Huntington St.Lincoln Ave. Knoxville Ave. Portland C ir.Talegate Dr. ManorfieldDr.Caddington Cir.Polo Cir. T r o tterDr.AcademyCir.Saddleback Ln.Duello Ln.Mashie Cir.Lucero Ln.Grass Cir.FlowerLn.NicholsLn.Cypress Dr.Koledo Ln.Queens Ln.Lori Dr. G r a zia d io Dr.GregoryLn.S unkist Cir.Assembly Ln.Electronic Ln.Apollo Ln.Thor Dr. Kimberly Dr.Fieldston Ln.Kingston Ln.Dover Dr.Baylor Cir.Drake Ln.Rice Cir.Alexandria Dr. Yale Cir. Harvard Cir. Rutgers Cir. Citadel Dr. Brown Cir.Duke Cir.La Salle Ln.Stanford Ln.Holiday Ln.Bayside Ln.Genoa Cir.Eton Cir.Sussex Cir.Oxford Dr. Alexandria Dr. Sorento Cir. Paris Cir. Rome Cir.Hanover Ln.Capri Cir.Florence Cir.Nube Ln.Marea Dr. Prairie Dr.GrunionLn.Grunion Ln.Jib Cir.Vista Dr.Island Cir.Neely Cir. Sandy Dr. Ranchview Pinecrest Milo Dr.Twintree Dr.Redwing Ln.Charlene Cir. Milo Dr.Hoskins Ln.Skipjack Dr.Marlin Dr.PorpoiseLn.Shark Dr. Stark Dr.Hart Cir.Waite Ln.Potter Cir.Wheeler Cir.Tripp Cir.Monroe Ln.Higgins Cir.Bryant Dr. Brush Dr. Huntington Villa g e L n . Royal Oak Dr. Norma Dr. Maddox Dr.Bartlett Ln.Northlake Dr.Robidoux Dr. Terry Dr.Lucia Ln.Bressel Ln.Woodstream Cir.Rockcreek Cir.Nancy Dr.Pine St.Ranch Ln.Se a b lu ffD r.PompanoLn.Coho Dr. Yellowtail Dr.Bluefish Ln.SeaspringDr. Cleveland Dr.Sunray Ln.Seahorse Ln.Stewart Ln.S h o r eli neLn.Seine Dr.GeminiLn.Seastar Dr. Oceanp ort Ln.Huntington St.Clearharbor Dr. Nomad Cir. Lowtide Cir.Sloop Cir.Rainbow Cir.Flagship Cir.Clay Ave.17th St.Terrace Cir. Williams Dr. Owen Dr.England St.Florida St.Florida St.Del Way WhitesandsDr.England St.Hess Cir.Utica Ave.Alabama St.Huntington St.California St.Springfield Ave. Ahsante Dr. Altamar Dr. Ariana Cir.Alabama St.Oswego Ave. Portland Ave. Bayport Dr.Florida St.California St.Joliet Ave.England St.Pacific Cove Ln.Summerview Ln.Shorecrest Ln.Sandglass Dr. Seabreeze Seadrift Dr. Landing Dr.Alabama St.Huntington St.Hartford Ave. Frankfort Ave. Geneva Ave. Elmira Ave. Baltimore Ave. Detroit Ave. Chicago Ave.Geneva Ave.Frankfort Ave.California St.Sandstone Cir.Oceanside Ln.Sandbar Ln.Bay Dr. Baypoint Dr.Shellfish Ln.Seacoast Cir.Beachcomber Dr.Coastwatch Ln.Shell Cir.CoastviewLn.SailmakerCir.Florida St.HuntingtonSt.Delaware St.Mainmast Dr. Sailboat Cir. Seabreeze Dr.AdmiralLn.WaterfallCir. SeawallCir. Southwind Cir. MoonmistCir. Oceangrove Cir. Sunrise Dr. Edison Dr. Lomond Dr. Doncaster Dr. Hillhead Dr.Scone Dr. StarshellDr.BastiaLn.Drymen Dr. Dory Dr.Jenny Dr. MarinersCoveDr. Leeward Dr.Lochlea Ln.Cupar Ln.Crew Dr.Cape HornDr. Artista Dr. Galley Dr.Gypsy Moth Ln.Windchild Ln.Wildwood Cir.Wildwood Dr. Pennington Dr.Attleboro Cir.Freeport Ln.Freeport Ln.EastportDr. WoolburnDr.WoolburnDr. EastportDr. Deerfield Dr.Deerfield Dr.Attleboro Ln.Surfwood Ln.Freeport Ln.Freeport Ln.Pawtucket Dr. Ridgefield Dr. Foxhall Dr. Pawtucket Dr. Ridgefield Dr.Weathersfield Ln.Chesterbrook Ln.Foxhall Dr.Chesterfield Ln.Attleboro Cir.Ashburton Cir.Driftwood Dr. Sail Cir. Mermaid Cir. Sunset Cir.Schooner Ln.Kingfisher Dr. Alvarado Dr. Castilian Dr.Colima Ln.Tern Cir.Goshawk Ln.Egret Ln.Sandpiper Ln.Somerville Ln.SevenSeasLn.Yvonne Ln.Londonderry Ln.Kilkenny Ln.Malloy Dr.Dublin Ln.Munster Dr.Sea Cir.Beam Cir.Lighthouse Ln.Seashell Cir.Sealrock Dr. Seaport Dr. Southport Dr. Millbridge Cir. Boothbay Cir. Norfolk Dr.Port Greenwich Ln.S. New Britain Ln.CapeCottageLn.N. New Britain Ln.Port v i e wTidepoolCir.Cir. W atersprayDr. Seawater Dr.Seabridge Ln.SandcoveCir.Cir.Bridgepoint Dr. Flaxman Dr. Deepview Dr.BridgesideLn.Seaglen Dr.WeemsLn.Rothert Ln.Edgewood Ln.Velvet Cir. Clarkdale Dr. Grace Cir. ScribeDr. CadeCir.Drybrook Ln.Ditmar Ln.Deepcliff Dr. Carson Dr.Sacramento Ln.AnzioCir.HardingLn.Wenlock Cir. J o n D a y D r .S t o n y b ro o k D r.B i r c h w o o d D r.Danbury Cir.Congress Cir.Capitol Cir.Skyline Ln.Elm Ln.Elm Ln.Jacquelyn Ln.Granada Ln.Guilders Dr. Polder Cir.NewmoonLn.Ivorycrest Ln.Rain Cir.AmbroseLn.Franklin Dr. Quebec Dr. Cliffside Dr. S uncoral Dr. Crescent Dr.Naples Dr.Bridgepo r t Dr. Fox Cir.Edgebrook Ln.A p p le b y D r .Vallea Cir.Sterling Dr. Le Conte Dr.Gum Tree Ln.Fairmont Ln.M orningsideDr.Surfdale Ln.Falmouth Dr. Dartmoor Dr.Queensport Ln.Seavista Ln.SardiniaLn.Vasile Cir.Lanark Cir. Lauder Cir. Elgin Cir. Seaspray Dr. Baywood Dr.Moontide Cir.Brixham Cir. Cir.Whitburn WorchesterLn.Weymouth Ln.Grant Dr.Colchester Ln.BeachcrestLn.Baymist Dr. Prestwick Cir. Islandview Surfline Dr.DalehurstCir.Mandeville Dr. Deauville Dr.Summerfield Ln.Milf ord Cir. Enfield Cir. Daren Cir.Hamden Ln.Gilford Cir. Franciscan Cir.Bridgeway Ln.Wave Cir. Keel Dr. Whitesails Cir.Sausalito Ln.Lorraine Dr. Brentwood Dr. Tanglewood Ln.Palermo Dr. Acapulco Cir. Bayonne Dr.Sailport Dr.Sailwind Ln.Pismo Ln.Rockcrest Ln.Coralwood Ln.Northstar Ln.Hopebay Ln.Seahurst Dr.Moorpark Dr.Sanderson Ln.Lotus Ln.Blane Cir. Karen Cir.Jerrilyn Ln.Cindy Ln.Waterbury Ln.Grand Dr. Krepp Dr.Steven Ln.Ronney Dr.McLaren Ln.Annik Dr.Lola Ln.Hickory Ln.Hyde Park Dr.Randi Ln.Hillsboro Cir.Mathew Cir.Woodward Ln.Litchfield Dr. Velardo Dr. Castine Dr.KitteryCir.Rockport Ln.Marblehead Ln.Stonington Cir.WoodIslandLn.Oceancrest Dr.SummerwindLn.ShorebreezeDr.OceanbreezeLn.Hightide Dr.Vacation Ln.Summer Cir.Surfcre s tD r.Tide Ln.Dakar Ln.Borba Cir.St John Ln.Clearbrook Dr.CameoLn.Archer Cir.Augusta Cir.Pensacola Cir.Peppertree Dr. Chevy Chase Dr. Indian Wells Cir.LemontreeLn.Spyglass Ln.Via Straits Ln.GreensprayLn.Denver Ln.TopekaLn.Phoenix Ln.Boise Dr. Pierre Dr. Salt Lake Dr.Gemfall Ln.Albatross Dr. Breakers Dr.Westwinds Ln.Cutter Dr.Isthmus Ln.Estuary Ln.Clipper Dr. Kelso Dr.Norcroft Ln.Flax Cir.Masters Dr.Newby Ln.Viscount Dr. Page Cir. Squires Cir. Princess Cir.Crown Reef Ln.Knights Cir.TranquilLn.Bellshire Dr.MayportLn.AtwaterSeaforth Ln.GothicCir.SwanseaLn.Astor Ln.Burlcrest Dr.Croft Ln.Henton Dr.MansardLn.Bainford Dr. Cir. Faust Vail Dr. Cir. Rath MeanderLn.Allport Ln.Charford Dr.Ives Ln.BrentstoneLn.Marvale Dr.MuralCir.Trinity Cir.Sierra Cir.SolanoCir.BeaconDr.Merced Cir.LarkhallCir.Oakridge Ln.Y u b a C ir.Cir.ModestoPlumasCir.Yolo Cir.Modoc Cir.AlamedaDr. Marin Cir. W ellspringDr.Cir. Butte Fresno Cir.Placer Cir.S u tte rC ir.GreenfieldLn.SonomaCir.BenitoCir.TulareDr.Cir.LassenNapa Cir.San DiegoCir.Inyo Cir. Cir.KingsO ra n g e C ir.L a u d er d a le Ct. Riverside Cir.Coral Springs Ct.Ventura Cir. Va n N e s s Ct .S h a s ta C ir .Kern Cir.Portola Ct.Martinique Dr.Barbados Cir.Miramar Ln.Greenboro Ln.WhiteHorseLn.Bolin Cir.Leasure Ln.Dorsett Dr.Poston Ln.Shaw Ln.Arcel Cir. Fry Cir.Kroll Ln.Sand Dollar Ln.Milne Dr. Sandy Hook Dr.Surveyor Cir.SailorsBayLn.Folkstone Cir.HarwichLn. Leilani Dr. Lanai Cir. Tiki Cir.La Jolla Cir. Tahiti Cir.Mal i buLn.Balboa Cir.Newport Cir.Catalina Cir.Molokai Dr.Luau Ln.Laguna Cir.Hula Cir.Playa Dr. Gateshead Dr. Bushwick D r.ChristineDr. Gulstrand Cir. Daytona Cir.Starfire Ln.Rambler Dr. Hudson Dr.Fairlane Cir.Keoki Cir.Kanakoa Ln.Hanakai Ln.Zamora Ln.Impala Ln.Neolani Dr.Lehua Ln.Teakwood Ln.Aloha Dr. Kahului Dr. Mahalo Dr. Kapaa Dr. Bermuda Dr. Rhodesia Dr.Kaneohe Ln.Haiti Dr. Adelia Cir. Regatta Dr. Bobbie Cir. Niguel Cir.BahamaLn.Polynesian Ln.Bowsprit Ln.Waterfront Dr. Tidewater Cir.Fleet Ln.Dockside Cir.Northshore Ln.Pier Dr.Bulkhead Cir.Dove Cir.Fern Cir.Shadwell Dr. Darrow Dr. Power Dr. Lawton Dr.Spurney Ln.Hillsdale Ln.HavenLn.ConradDr.Dante Ln.Santiago Dr.Carmel Ln.Belcaro Dr. Sunridge Dr. Woodcrest Dr. Fireside Dr. Comstock Dr.Crestview Ln.Spencer Cir.Hopetown Ln.KelvinLn.ChaucerLn.ElizabethLn.Carrolltown Dr. Albany Cir.Minerva Ln.Tobermory Cir.Bearsden Cir.Callieburn Cir.Cloudhaven Dr.Anchor Cir.Bluffwater Cir.KenyonLn.Venus Cir.Mooncrest Cir.Coastland Dr.Titan Ln.Tideland Ln.Cliffwood Dr.Deervale Ln.Adrian Cir.Bancroft Cir.Ramona Ln.Eastwood Cir.Hazelbrook Dr. Candlewood Dr.ShelterLn.Nautilus Dr.Shorewood Cir.Harbor Isle Ln.Jett Dr.LarthornDr.Johnson Ln.Peach Ln.Peach Ln.Flora Ln.Flora Ln.Fee Ln.Gloucester Ln.Providence Ln.Cape Cod Dr. Groton Dr. Greenwich Dr. Portsmouth Dr. Nantucket Dr. Hyannis Port Dr.Waterbury Ln.Honeywood Ln.V illageDr.GardeniaLn.Marina Ln.DensmoreLn.Veronica Dr. Madeline Dr. Elva Cir. Verde Mar Dr. Bluereef Dr. Monte Carlo Cir.Seasprite Cir.Jamaica Cir.Port Royal Cir.Bay Crest Cir.Green Cove Cir.Villa Pacific Dr.Wavecrest Cir.Seacove Dr. Barranca Cir.MonacoCir.Brookhaven Cir.Harbor Point Cir.Carribean Cir.Brookbay Cir.Agean Cir.Sunstar Cir.AgeanCir.CarribeanCir.Agean Cir.Carribean Cir.Coral Cove Cir.Richmond Cir.Lockhaven Cir.Effingham Dr.AmberwickLn.Strathmoor Ln.Shackleford Cir.Beckwourth Cir.Cornerbrook Dr. Bluefield Dr.Firebrand Ln.Inferno Ln.Volante Dr. Kite Dr. Star Dr. Upland Dr. Endever Dr.El Toro Ln.SparkmanLn.NationalLn.Levee Dr.Tiller Cir.Horizon Ln.Spinnaker Dr. Voyager Cir.Pebble Ln.Salt Air Cir.Pierview Ln.Reef Ln.Zetland Dr. Dumbreck Dr. Netherway Dr. Caithness Dr. Erskine Dr.Troon Ln.Iona Ln.QueensParkLn.Friarscourt Dr. Scotstoun Dr.WoodleaLn.Glencairn Ln.Jura Dr. Big Sur Dr. Vicksburg Dr. Hot Springs Dr. Peck Dr. Mammoth Dr.Colonial Cir.Y e l lowstone Dr. Lassen C ir.Morristown Cir.WindCaveLn.Sheffield Ln.Raleigh Dr.Burnley Ln.Kensington Dr.Kensington Dr. Raleigh Dr.Leighton Ln.Vermont Ln.CornwallDr. Durham Dr. Kensington Dr.Coventry Ln.Keswick Ln.Sutton Ln.Charing Cross Dr.Claremont Ln.Keswick Ln.Coventry Ln.Aberdeen Dr. Devonshire Dr.Coventry Ln.Keswick Ln.Argyle Dr. Maikai Dr. Kaimu Dr.Samoa Dr.Suva Ln.Moorea Ln.Tonga Ln.Papua Ln.Bikini Ln.IndependenceLn.Monitor Dr. Shangri La Dr.LexingtonLn.Lurline Dr.Canberra Ln.ConstellationLn.Trenton Ln.Forrestal Dr. Bismark Dr. Constitution Dr. Cutty Sark Dr. Valley Forge Dr. Merrimac Dr.Matsonia Ln.Shalom Dr.LexingtonLn.Ranger Ln.Carmania Ln.Margate Ln.Hull Dr.Ramsgate Ln.Holburn Dr. Disney Cir. Ascot Cir.ColgateCir.BeaumontCir.Niagara Dr. Jill Dr. Wesley Cir.Midland Ln.T anbar k Cir.Princeton Cir.CraimerLn.Hercules Dr. C r a ile t D r.Warwick Dr. Kings Canyon Dr. AmbyDr. CynthiaDr. Theseus Dr. Beverly Dr.Lavonne Ln.Cliff Dr. Suntan Cir. Signet Cir.Spindrift Ln.Starboard Cir.Oyster Bed Ln.SurgeLn.Galbar Cir.Sprit Cir. Spar Cir.Larchmont Cir.D e arb or n e Cir. Clay Ave.RavenwoodLn.Holly Ln.Q uietBayLn.Pitcairn Ln.Fiji Ln.Tobago Ln.Mauna Ln.Harborbreeze Ln.JonesportLn.Susan Ln.Olana Ln.Big Bend Ln.Everglades Ln.RunningSpringsLn.Redwood Ln.Briarly Ln.Felcliff Ln.Fallbrook Cir. Pennington Dr.Chesterbrook Ln.Chesterbrook Ln.Ashburton Ln.Ashburton Ln.Whitestone Dr. Stilwell Dr.Oceanview Ln.C ape M ay Ln. Little HarborDr.Fores te r D r . SilveradoDr. S ilveradoDr. CherryhillLn. Greenbr ier D r.Cir.NorconFanw o o d D r .BanktonDr.JasonwoodDr. Judwick Cir. Maryport Dr.Tamiko Cir.Moss Dr.Breda Ln.Foss Ln.Evergreen Cir.Yosemite Cir.Coronado Ln.St George Ln.Erwin Ln.Gurney Ln.Baxter Cir.Steiner Cir.Fallingwater Dr. FenleyDr.Still Harbor Ln.Arrowhead Dr.Hallcroft Ln.BershireDr. Carbeck Dr. Foxshield Dr.PepperLn.Galicia Ln.El Cortijo Dr.Kristopher Ln.Kilda Cir.Cobra Ln.Manhattan Dr.Argo Cir.Ireland Ln.Carranza Ln.Aracena Dr. Segovia Cir. Montoya Cir. Sabbicas Cir.Lakepoint Ln.Heathpoint Ln.Hallport Ln.MorganLn.CrabbLn.Reynolds Cir.Lyons Cir.Windfield Dr. Happy Dr. Mountjoy Dr.CarnabyLn.Gaspe Cir.Alberta Dr.ManitobaLn.Autopark Dr. PromenadePkwy. Forest Glen Dr. Luss Dr. Rockridge Dr. Ashley Dr.Stewart Ln.Marseille Dr.Kampen Ln.Major Cir.Van Dyke Ln.Hague Ln.Meer Cir.Waal Cir.Van Buren Ln.Noble Cir. Darsy Dr. Opal Cir.Jefferson Ln.Cameron Ln.Roxanne Ln.Geraldine Ln.Rosanna Dr. Benjamin Dr.Brittany Ln.Gulf Ln.Tradewind Cir.Mapledale Ln.Gladys Dr.Wharton Ln.Roberta Cir.Thomas Cir.Ta y l o r Dr.Springtime Ln.Dancy Cir. La Palma Dr.Libra Cir.Modale Dr.Sampson Ln.WoodwindDr. Fairwind Cir. D erby Cir.Fla gstaff L n. Spring Cir.CrimsonCir.Ln.ListerKatherine Dr.Smokewood Cir.Constantine Dr.Wild Rose Ln.PaseoCir.Remington Ln.Gershwin Dr.Almelo Ln.Frans Ln.Wendy Cir.Hillgate Ln.Beck Cir.Shoreham Ln.Helenbrook Ln.Barwoo d D r.Marber Ln.McCarthy Dr.De Long Cir.Griffith Cir.Price Dr.Grove Cir.Northfield Ln.FraserLn.Julip Ln.Blue Fox Cir.Rob Roy Cir.Gibson Cir.Drey Ln.Rio Vista Dr.Torin Dr.Lewis Ln.Newbury Dr. Wintergreen Dr.Salamanca Ln.Green Ln.Sims Ln.Sandra Lee Ln.Newman Ave. Ronald Dr. Taylor Dr. Amberleaf Cir.ParkviewLn.JoyfulLn.Ontario Dr.Florida St.Patterson Ln.Demion Ln.ChapelLn.Chandon Ln.Forelle Dr.Hartlund Ln.Springhu rs tDr. Newman Ave. Michael Dr.Jefferson Ln.Marken Ln.HarborBluffsCir.Dunbar Dr. D o r a d o D r.Ab aloneLn.Newquist Ln.Greentree Ln.Pendleton Dr. G lenstone D r.Be ll portCir.Berlin Ln.Tiffany Cir.Twain Ln.Whistler Cir. RenoirCir.ChapparalLn.Autumn Cir.Pinehurst Ln.June Dr. Meadow Crest Dr.Englewood Cir.Madera Ln.Destry Cir.Morro Bay Ln.Madera Ln.MariposaDr.Ojai Ln.Napa Cir.Elsinore Cir.Margarita Ln.El ArroyoDr.Golden View Ln.Fenwick Dr.Whetmore Ln.Kurt Ln.Mayor Ln.Caspers Cir.Cedar Dr. Cain Dr.Mona Ln.Nimrod Dr.Apex Cir.Fir Dr. Belsito Dr. Sycamore Dr. Cypress Dr. Kristin Cir. Wagon Dr.Dairyview Cir.Jacquelyn Ln.Koledo Ln.Keelson Ln.B Ln.A Ln.Blaylock Dr. Stanley Ln. EdamCir.Zeider Ln.Magic Lantern Ln.Bates Cir. T u s c an Cir. Gainsford Ln.PutneyCir.CrownCir.FalkirkLn.SereneDr. Ludlow Cir.Stanfield Cir.BrightonDr.CardiffCir.Selkirk Dr.AlfawnCir.Cir.Cir.FelsonDenvaleRidgeburyDr. Lancefield Dr. Armada Dr.McKinney Cir.Soria Cir. Calpe Cir.Mira El Rio Ln.Belva Dr.Brookshire Ln.Baron Cir.BellCir.Sergio Cir.Hawes Ln.Beard Ln.Pollard Ln.Stymie Dr.Manchester Ln.Morehead Dr.LaCosta Ln.Maggie Ln.MaplegroveGoldsportCir.Quintana Ln.San Leandro Ln.Santana Cir.Cir.IdlewildCir. Cir. SweetwaterCir. Sunbeam Newgate Dr.Oakstone Cir.LarkstoneCir.Cir.Chalk Ln.BluffBasin Cir. Padrino Cir. ManifestoCir. Rolf Cir. Magic Cir.Pemberco Cir.Gleada Ln.Orchid Dr.ParktreeC i r.JollyLn.Connie Dr.Marty Ln.Alice Ln.Sharon Ln.Beachpoint Cir.SteepLn.Pammy Ln.Huntington St.Prodan Dr.Cliffview Ln.Lakeview Dr.Inlet Dr. Glenfox Dr.Lisa Ln.GoodwinLn.Brentwell Cir.Inlet Dr.Wellbrook Cir.Dolphinwood Dr. Norbrook Dr. LittlefieldDr. BershireDr.Wildflower Ln.C rosswind Dr.Corral Cir. Derby Cir. Pimlic o Cir.Faircross Ln.BazilCir. Horsesh oe Ln.SummerBreezeLn.Shady Harbor Cir.LawnHaven Dr.CoolwaterLn.Seagate Dr.Promenade Pkwy.Park Meadow Ln.Park Forest Dr.Park Glen Ln.Park Crest Ln.Park Ridge Ln.Park Field Cir. Parkwood Dr.Racquet Ln.Brookwood Dr. Rapids CreekviewLn.Creek Ln.Shaffer Cir. Palin Cir.HavenwoodCir.SeapointSt.Silkwood Cir.Hoyt Cir.Cherrywood Cir. Laurelwood Dr.Ln.ElmwoodMaplewood Cir.Applewood Cir.Vallarta Dr.Pueblo Cir.Vallarta Dr. Kingsport Dr. Laura Cir.Carolyn Ln.HillsideCir.Colon Cir.Mora Kai Ln.Timber Cir.Delaware St.WakefieldLn.Essex Dr.Palmdale Ln.Metzler Ln.Enterprise Ln.EveningStarCir.Candle Cir.Searidge Cir. Glenstone Dr.Valeworth Cir.Orkney Cir.Varsity Dr.Highland Ln.Central Park Dr.FieldburyLn.Stardust Dr. Engineer Dr.Dan Ln.N e a r gate Dr. SpaDr.Thunderbird Cir.Hammon Ln.Harold Pl.NevadaDr. San Souci Cir. Frontier Cir. Croupier Dr. Jade Cir.Shinkle Cir.Penfield Cir.Oaktree Cir.Business Dr. Commercial Dr.Swan Ln.Hummingbird Ln.Reno Atlas Dr.Capetown Ln.Victoria Ln.Plymouth Ln.Cottonwood Cir.ScotsdaleMinoru Ln.Wishingwell Ln.ElbeCir.ThamesLn. Toulouse Dr.Howland Ln.Redgrove Cir. Bridgewater Dr.Fountain Ln.Ringo Cir. Govin Cir. WoodlakeDr.ReginaCir.Jersey Cir. Bellinger Dr.Hilton Ln.Meadow Cir.Lynn Ln.Sims Ln.Blanton Ln.DoloresLn.Rudder Dr. W estport D r.St i l esCir.Waverly Ln.EdgewaterLn. Ondine Cir. Diablo Cir. Figaro Cir.Kamalii Dr.Cor al Cay L n .Corbina Ln.Friml Ln.Pickwick Cir. Barnstable Cir. Ardsley Cir. S e a sca pe Dr. F in is te rre D r.L e g e n d C ir.K itte n C ir.S iriu s D r.Malden Cir. Mariana Cir. D evon Cir.Easter Cir.ConnectorLn.Transistor Ln.Buckingham Dr. Bluebonnet Marinabay Dr.CourtsideCir.Dr. Breeland Dr. Retherford Dr.Mayflower Ln.Toway Ln.Danes Cir.Leonard Ln.Cir.Cooper Ln.BurkeLn.Ross Ln.Pearce Dr.Edgewater Ln.Lowell Cir.Trinidad Ln.Vim Ln.Tropicana Ln.RivieraDr.Flintridge Ln.Sahara Ln.Nugget Cir. Sands Dr. Chinook Dr.Dunes Ln.Anacapa Dr.Elmhurst Cir.Fairview Ln.Chateau Ln.Edgeview Ln.Larchwood Dr. Viking Cir. Halifax Dr. Melbourne Dr.Salisbury Ln.Norwich Cir.Knollwood Cir.Tangiers Dr. Cumberland Dr. Dresden Cir.Newcastle Ln.Nottingham Ln.Sevilla Cir.Pelican Ln.Partridge Cir. Pheasant Cir. Flamingo Cir. Bluejay Cir.Bluebird Ln.Oriole Ln.Sparrow Dr. Skylark Dr.Chemical Ln.Production Dr.Manufacture Ln.System Dr. Industrial Dr.Container Ln.Industry Ln.Commerce Ln.Product Ln.Computer Ln.Producer Ln.Taft Ln.Cross Dr. Cir. Research Dr. Vane Cir. Stone Cir.Alden Ln.Eliot Cir.Pratt Cir.Cabot Cir.Albion Dr. Priscilla Dr. Calvin Cir. Milton Cir. Welde Cir.Aulnay Ln.WillettLn.Pilgrim Cir.Puritan Cir.Hooker Dr. Woodside Cir. Vesper Cir.Whiteoak Ln.Wild CherryWild Plum Cir.Placid Cir.Oakshire Ln.Skyview Dr. Gas Light Dr. Red Coach Dr. Glen Dr. Sunview Dr.Dawson Ln.Starshine Dr. Meath Cir. Eire Cir. Clare Dr. Limerick Dr.Dundalk Ln.Belfast Ln.Wicklow Ln.Cork Dr. Carlow Dr.Malm Cir.Feola Cir.Rollins Ln.Shannon Dr. Briarwood Dr. Moonbeam Dr.Sunburst Ln.Chestnut Dr.Sunflower Ln.Whitney Dr. Everest Cir. Etna Cir.Malaga Ln.La Paz Dr.AndersonSt.G rim aud Ln.San Angelo Dr. Lorge Cir. Volga Dr. Amazon Dr. Rhone Ln.Ganges Ln.Sher Ln.Bolsa Ave. Mars Dr. B ranfordDr.MacDonald Dr. Holt Dr. Stark Dr. Aldrich Dr.Parkside Ln.Juliette Low Dr. Alhambra Dr. Glencoe Dr.Mark Ln.Silver Ln.Murdy Cir.Sabot Ln.Starlight Cir. Valentine Dr. Moonlight Cir. Candlelight Cir. Stonewood Dr. Bluesails Dr.Moonglow Ln.Bridge Ln.Sunlight Dr.Serenade Ln.Magellan Ln.Bouquet Dr. Doriane Cir. Esta Cir.Pitman Ln.Marjan Ln.Walton Dr.Windemeir Ln.Tellim Ln.Giarc Ln.Craig Ln.Lennox Dr. Laurelhurst Dr. Lafayette Dr. Auburn Dr. Defiance Dr.Tufts Ln.Oakgrove Cir.Lakemont Ln.JulienCir. Chele Cir.Hobart Ln.Nyanza Dr.Gold Cir.BondurantCir.JerevaCir.BrentCir.CulpepperCir.NorgroveCir.VillaYorba Brimhall Ln.Myrtle Dr. Shayne Dr.Bradbury Ln.Orlando Dr.DagnyCir. Montecito Dr. Palisade Dr.Angler Ln.Clubhouse Ln.Mangrum Dr. Littler Dr. Castle Dr. Clark Dr.Birdie Ln.Middlecoff Dr. Loyola Dr. Anita Ln. Saturn Dr. Venturi Dr.Ace Ln.Clubhouse Ln.Brassie Cir. Pa r C ir. M e a d o w la r k Dr.FairwayLn.ChipperLn.Snead Dr.Liles Ln.DavisLn.Schryer Ln.Sandra Ln.Warren Ln.Audrey Dr. Linda Cir. Sisson Dr. Cheryl Dr.MorseCir. Somerset ln.Tomas Ln.Santa Anita Ln.Arlington Ln.Hollywood Ln.Bayshore Ln.Saratoga Ln.Golden Gate Ln.Copenhagen Bergen Stockholm Way TenorDr.Melody Ln.Opera Ln.Honolulu Ln.Hawaii Ln.Kaui Dr. Kona Dr. Maui Cir. Hilo Cir. Oahu Dr.Waikiki Ln.LandauLn.Savoy Cir. De Ville Cir.Royer Cir. Parker Cir. Wagers Cir. Hastings Cir. Lamar Dr. Lois Cir. Donald Cir. Judy Cir. Orinda Cir. Howard Cir. Arnett Dr. Merle Cir. Glasgow Cir. Kent Cir. Viceroy Cir. Camel Cir. Ferguson Cir. Salem Cir. Royal Dr. Jarrett Cir. Derek Cir. Conner Dr.Roque Ln.Anthony Dr.Asari Ln.RiverbendDr.Lambert Dr.Irby Ln.Glenhaven Ln.Jeffrey Cir.Arnett Dr. Saru Cir. Tamaru Dr.A Ln.B Ln.Heritage Ln.St CloudLeafwood Cir.Lancaster Dr.Montclair Ln.Danube Dr.Rhone Ln.Tiber Ln.Don Dr.CharlesLn.Nile Cir.RhineDr.LoireCir. RhineCir.Ha r knessCir.Viewpoint Ln.Chrysler Cir. Terry Dr. Damask Dr. Moonshadow Cir.WestwoodLn.Millpond Ln.Southlake Dr. Washington Dr.Lyndon Ln.V a n ta g e D r.H er m it Cir.Kellog Cir.Delton Cir.Tunstall Ln.La Mancha Cir. Kenilworth Dr. El Dorado Dr. Corsican Dr.Bardon Ln.Prince Dr. Count Cir. Earl Cir. Elk Cir.Lilac Ln.Lydia Dr. Lenis Cir. Verlene Cir. Paula Cir. Carla Cir.Marie Ln.Diane Ln.Debra Cir.Wanda Cir.Patricia Ln.Ruth Dr. Bonnie Dr.Simonne Ln.Sylvia Dr. Marilyn Dr.DaleVistaLn.Cod Cir.Limelight Cir.Sculpin Ln.Sun Dr. Brad Dr. Peggy Cir. Corrine Cir. Bishop Dr. Abbott Dr. Farinella Dr. Jean Dr. Gumm Dr.BusbyLn.RobertLn.TrudyLn.Kendrick Cir. Annette Cir. Doyle Dr.Farinella Dr. C a m ille D r .SummercloudLn.Mytinger Ln.Weber Cir. Crandall Dr.Torjian Ln.Cir.HillviewPro Cir.Fernhill Cir.Charleyville Cir.Meadowbrook Dr. Midiron Cir. Donlyn Dr. Treetop Cir. Langport Cir. Gildred Cir. Franmar Cir. Edmonds Cir.Greenview Ln.Lark Ln.View Cir. Trophy Dr.RubyCir.RedRockCir.CanyonLn.Overland Dr.Flagg Ln.B o nanza Dr.AgateCir.Diamond Dr.Coach Ln.Graham Pl.Old Pirate Dr.StonehavenCir.Parlay Cir.Graz Cir.Gelding Cir.Roosevelt Ln.Stallion Cir.Moody Cir.WaveriderCir.Sel l Ci r .Campesina Ln.Madrid Way Cielo Dr.Caballero Ln.Rey Dr.Oceano Cir. R o u n d hill Dr.Forbes Ln.Pescado Ln.Arena Cir.Kettler Ln.Mason Dr. Gloria Dr.Redlands Ln.Edgemont Dr.Oakmont Ln.Whittier Ln.Valentine Dr.Pomona Ln.Tyee Ln.Sweetbriar Ln.Sherbeck Ln.Brunswick Dr. Canterbury Dr.Yorkshire Ln.Cascade St.Briarcliff Dr. Mar Vista Dr.Columbia Ln.Bolsa Park Ln.Medford Dr. Royalist Dr. Winslow Dr.Carrie Ln.Silverwood Dr. LennoxDr. Flint Dr. Reubens Dr.Ballantine Ln.Duchess Ln.Woodstock Ln.Underhill Ln.Mercier Ln.Normandy Ln.GentryLn.Christy Dr. ShieldsDr.LovellLn.Spa Dr.Stard u s t Dr. Skylab Rd.Skylab Rd.Cambay Ln.Baffin Cir.Chemical Ln.Tasman Dr. Machine Dr. Dovewood Dr. Robinwood Dr. Quail Cir. Meadowlark Dr. Caliente Dr.Del Mar Ln.Meadowlark Dr.Rushmoor Ln.Marshall Dr. Hendricksen Dr.OsloLeasure WayPleasure Ln.Bonita Dr.Snapper Ln.Olas Dr.Le Grande Ln.Waterway Cir.Operetta Dr.GreenLn.Rhapsody Dr. Prelude Dr. Minuet Dr. Suite Dr.Ballad Ln.Waltz Cir.Aria Cir.Fantasia Ln.S horebird D r.Seaview Ln.Monterey Ln.Mandalay Cir.Humboldt Dr.Wimbledon Ln.Harbour Ln.Cir.San ClementeWhitecapLn.Stillwater Dr.Eagle Ln.NassauLn.Softwind Dr.Avalon Ln.Dominica Cir.Bonaire Cir.C a lh o unDr.P ie rs o n D r.S illim a n D r.T ru m b u llD r.TalismanLn.Phelps Ln.Morning Star Dr. Dale Dr. Boardwalk Dr. Sea Harbour Dr.Barefoot Cir.Outrigger Cir.Castaway Ln.Stowaway Cir.SaybrookLn.Concord Ln.Windsor Dr.BedfordLn.FairfieldCir.Blair Ln.Westport Dr.Roundhill Dr.S a y bro o k L n.SceptreLn.Weatherly Ln.Aladdin Dr. Davenport Dr. Davenport Dr. Bluewater Ln. M arinabayDr.Bol e r o Ln .Bolero Ln.SeaWitchLn.Baruna Ln.Nalu Cir.Ensign Cir. Cotuit Cir.Mistral Dr.Tisbury Cir. Niantic Cir. Maruffa Cir. Ladona Cir. P e ale L n. Channel Ln. Wellington Cir.Dr.IntrepidLn.RemoraAdm iraltyD r.Tiburon Pl.Germain Cir.Crete Ln.BordeauxLn. Tro p e z L n. B or d e a u x L n.GrenobleLn.Lazare Ln.Grim a u d Ln.Tr opez L n. Portofino Cir.Twi nkl e Ci r.Fame Ci r.Sparkler Dr.TyphoonLn.WalrusLn.Surprise Ln.Ln.ContenderTempeDr.Bounty Cir.WayfarerLn. SantaBarbaraLn. Bravata Dr. WindspunDr. Bravata Dr.Windspun Dr.MontegoDr. Tortola Cir.St Croix Aruba Cir. Running Tide Cir. Pirate Cir. Rebel Cir.Sundancer Ln.Ragtime Cir. Nimble Cir. Escapade Cir.RascalLn.C ir.Q u ic k s te p Content Cir .Wildfi reCir.SpartanCir. AquariusDr. Venture Dr. Venture Dr. Aquarius Dr.Falkland Cir.Martin Ln.Coast Cir.Piedmont Cir.Pacific Cir.Gilbert Dr.Gilbert Dr.S a g amoreDr. MoritzDr. Shorebreak D r.PocoCir.SagamoreDr. M elville Cir.Ln.SherlockAlderport Dr. Dr. Summerdale Dr.Pinehurst Ln.SummerdaleDr. Freeborn Dr. Athena Dr.Lido Ln.Mukai Ct.Marcellena Dr. Betty Dr. Ford Dr.Mill Cir.Lee Cir.Canna Cir.Liege Dr. KenbrookDr. Kenwick Cir. Mandrell Dr. Barton Dr. Amsterdam Dr. Rembrandt Dr. Holland Dr. Windy Sea Cir. Windy Sands Cir. Friesland Dr. Valencia Dr.Forest Ln.Jalm Dr. Burton Dr. Speer Dr. Liberty Dr. Los Amigos Cir. Spickard Dr.Via Espana Ln.ViaEspanaLn.Helmside Dr.Avilla Ln.El Nopal Ln.Cordoba Ln.San Roque Ln.Jardines Dr. Villa Nueva Dr. Nutwood Cir. Kelley Cir. Kiser Dr.Collie Ln.Fritch Dr.Fernpoint Cir.Bluegate Ln.DellglenCir.Larcrest Cir.Hamshire Dr. Vatcher Dr. Balmoral Dr.Caledonia Cir.Skye Ln.Braemar Dr. Padua Dr. Terrier Dr. Pinon Dr. Lourdes Dr. Raphael Dr.Wrightwood Ln.Mossvale Cir.WoodfernLn.Windcroft Dr.FalkirkLn.CrestmoorLn.LarkmontDr.OldglenLn.Wellbank Ln.Bolton Cir.Grimsby Dr.Hartfield Cir.Starm ontLn.Woodboro Dr. A llstone D r . RainglenLn.Gri ms b y Dr. MidwayDr. B e l l fi e l d Ln. Irongate Cir.Twinford Ln.OxboroLn.Clearwater Cir.Westlake Cir.Freshwater Cir.Upperl ake Cir. LittlefieldDr.Vestry Cir.Riverside Cir.Silv ersp u r L n.ParkRoyalCir. Ashbury Cir.Shor evi e w Cir. Vincen t C ir.Harriman Cir. Yukon Dr. Shamrock Cir. Kiner Dr.Kiner Dr. Delfino Cir.GinaLn.LindenwoodDr.wood Cir.Heaven-Tulipwood Cir.Thornwood Cir.Nettlewood Cir.Valley Cir.Professional Cir. Dr. Park Bay Dr.Seagate Dr.Park Brook Ln.Park Haven Ln.Park Path Dr. Crestwood Dr.ClubLn.S agewood Dr .Huntington St.OceanParkL n . Monte Cristo Ln.Kithira Cir.Milos Cir.Prospect Dr.PinnacleCir.UpperBay Dr.BreezyLn.Ernest Dr. Foxboro Cir.GarnetLn.Ben tleyLn. She r w oodDr.Hitchingpost Cir.York Ln.Silverbit Ln.Carria geCir.Silverspur Ln.Shire Cir.QuarterhorseLn.Churchill Dr.Rockinghorse Ln.Faircrest Dr. Overlook Dr. Setting Sun Dr. S hetla n d Cir.JockeyCir.ClearviewLn.TwilightDr.OldgateLn.PacemontDr.Saltwater Cir.M ontford Dr.Pacifica Cir.Seaworthy Dr. Cir.Seashore Cir.Waterside Dr.Piccadilly Ln.Velardo Dr. Tarpon Dr. Flounder Dr.AmbertonLn.Turf Dr. Livingston Dr. Pollack Dr. Sailfish Dr.Lindsay Ln.Lookout Ln.Plum Tree Ln.Yacht Ln.BeckonridgeLn.Dewber r y Dr.DewberryDr.Vill age OaksCi r. R adcliffC ir.B ecko nri d geLn.Jepsen Cir.Canis Cir. Capstone Dr. Ford Ln. Shenlyn Dr. Kirklund Cir. Wrenfield Dr.Rook Dr. Rennrick Cir. Dohrn Cir.Mira Loma Cir.Alta Vista Cir.Encino Cir.Santa Ynez Dr. Silverheel Cir. Morion Cir. Sundance Cir.Prescott Ln.Flintstone Ln.MutherLn.San Doval Ln.Altamirano Ln.TreehavenLn.Rosemont Dr.La Mesa Ln.Sonoma Dr. Point Loma Dr.Scotia Cir.Galipea nD r.St Paul Cir. Montego Dr.Montego Dr.Montego Dr.Calneva Ln.Hardwick Cir. Kelsey Cir. Ivory Cir.Sunnycrest Ln.Belmar Cir.LeafCir.Moonfield Dr.Aspen Cir.Zane Cir.Yucca Cir.Larkspur Cir. Harmony Cir.Quill Cir.Sunnycrest Ln.Ridgeview Cir.Trojan Cir.Sugar Dr. Dundee Dr. Cornell Dr. Tyndall Dr. Sydney Dr. Shelly Dr. Hughes Dr. Antrim Cir. Tyrone Cir. Down Dr. Dunn Dr. Sligo Cir. Longford Cir. Cavan Cir.Standish Ln.Tullow Ln.Colbreggan Dr. Ellsworth Dr.Kelvingrove Ln.Humboldt Dr.Mistral Dr.Wa n d er e r Ln .Car o u s el L n. Bluewater Ln.Bream Ln.Oslo Mycroft Ln.FrancoisDr.AnneCir.Ln.MillstreamEastlake Ln.Kim Ln.Courtney Ln.Baker Dr. Cory Dr. Via Angelina Dr. Vista Del Sol Dr. Via Carona Dr.Cove Cir.Port Cir.Lantana Ln.Kelvingrove Ln.Browning Dr.HarborIsleLn.Suns hi n eDr.Olympic Dr. Dr.VerdantCarlsbad Ln.Paisley Ln.Edye Dr. Neptune Dr.SundownLn.Poolside Ln.Longmeadow Dr. Creedmoor Dr.Burlington Ln.Sable Dr. Malahine Dr. Woods Hole Dr.Cape Split Cir.Onset Cir.Harbor Dr.Watch Colusa Cir. Lyman Dr.Repair Ln.Trondheim Newland St.Newland St.Edinger Ave.BolsaChicaSt.Edinger Ave.Springdale St.Goldenwest St.Bolsa Ave.Gothard St.BeachBlvd.Edinger Ave.Edwards St.Heil Ave.Magnolia St.Brookhurst St.Bushard St.Magnolia St.Yorktown Ave. Adams Ave. Atlanta Ave. Indianapolis Ave. Hamilton Ave. Banning Ave. Garfield Ave.Garfield Ave. Heil Ave.Algonquin St.Warner Ave.Bolsa Chica St.Warner Ave. Heil Ave. McFadden Ave.Graham St.Edinger Ave.Springdale St.Center Ave. Heil Ave. Edinger Ave.Edwards St.Warner Ave.GoldenwestSt.Beach Blvd.Argosy Ave.Gothard St.Slater Ave.GrahamSt.T a lb e r t A v e.Springdale St.Slater Ave. GarfieldAve. Orange Ave.17th St.Palm Ave. Yorktown Ave.Lake St.Adams Ave.Main St.Gothard St.Delaware St.Lake St.Delaware St.Indianapolis Ave.BeachBlvd.Newland St.BrookhurstSt.Indianapolis Ave.MagnoliaSt.BushardSt.Atlanta Ave. Pacific Coast Hwy.BeachBlvd.Hamilton Ave.NewlandSt.Banning Ave.BrookhurstSt.Bushard St.Pacific Coast Hwy.Ward St.Atlanta Ave.Main St.Collins Cir.Collins Cir.Vermont Ln.Goldenwest St.RedondoCir.Kovacs Ln.EveningsongDr.StrattonLn.Hacienda Dr. Dollar Dr. O c e a n V is t a D r.Sur ft i deDr.P acific C oast H w y.Ch am pio n L n.PeachtreeLn.S e a b ro okLn.MarinerDr.Ale rt Ln. B a n d itCir.ArborCir.AshfordLn.FairfaxLn.Arcadia Dr. Mirage Dr.Sinclair Ln.Roxbury Ln.Ainsley Dr. Whitewater Dr.QuietCoveCir. Ocean Point Dr. MerionCir.Hunter Ln.ManessaCir.SurfriderLn.IslanderLn.CapistranoLn.Ellis Ave. Talbert Ave. Ellis Ave. McFadden Ave. Bolsa Ave.SaybrookLn.DantonCir. Los PatosAve. Cascade Ln. Shasta Ln.Countess Dr.Bimini Ln.Humboldt Dr.Scenario Dr.AirportCir.Warner Ave. Pacific CoastH w y. Talbert Ave. Slater Ave. Yorktown Ave. Adams Ave.Sealpoint Ln.BroadstoneCir.ShadowbrookCir.Pacific View Ave.Alanis Cir.Baeza Cir.Ronda Cir.Elda Cir.Twin Dolphin Dr.Veleta Cir.Morabito Dr.Cieza Cir.Lorenzo Dr.Prado Cir.Lorca Cir.Aldea Cir. Ubeda Cir. Osuna Cir.Andalucia Ln.Alcazar Ln.Balerma Ln.Vera Cir.Armilla Cir.Estepa Cir.Twin Dolphin Dr.Scenic Bay Dr. Lakefront Cir. Ridge Glen Dr. Mission Glen Ct. Garden Glen Ct.Fountain Glen Dr. Harbor Glen Dr.Willow Glen Ct.VillageGlenLn.GlenLn.Terrace90. Scripts Ct.89. Brookings Ct.87. Rincon Ct. 86. Trestles Ct.85. Reedsport Ct. 81. Rockaway Ct.80. Cannon Ct.79. Coos Ct.78. Toledo Ct.90.89.Suntide Dr. 87. 86.86. 81.79.78.80. 85.Oceanspray Ln.Seahaven Dr. Nestucca Ct.Fanshell Ln.Pecan Ave.6th St. Research Dr. M er onaDr.Allegra Ln.Luna Dr. Jordyn Ct.Cole Ln.Bret Ct. Lisamarie Ct. Richard Ct.Alexa Ln.Kelter Dr.Brynn Ct.Thistle Ct.Azalea Ct.Max Ct.Eric Ct.Rosemarie Dr. Berry Ct. Kearny D r. Depoe Ct.CrystalaireLn.Siena Dr.Calera Ln.Marisa Dr.AmaliaLn.Latigo Dr. Paloma Dr. Preakness Dr. Steeplechase Cir.Saddleback Ln.Via Vista Cir.DeAnzaCir.Calle Parque Dr.CalleCastorCir.VistaRomaCir.DelOroCir.La Bonita Ln.Dr.LaVillaLn.Vista BahiaCaminoCanadaLn.Goleta Po intDr.Stinson Dr.Cabrillo Ln.Monarch Ln.Zuma Dr. AndrosCir. Delphi Cir. Alamitos Cir. Pearce Dr.Westfield Ln.Brightfield Cir. Chadwick Dr.PlazaLn.Heathe r ly D r. Doverton Dr. G r a n v ille D r .Rosecrest Dr.Maywood Ln.D a nvilleDr.Tremaine Dr. NewfieldCir.Brigham Ln.Graham St.Sabot Ln.NicholsLn.Hideaway Cir. Lago Dr.Blackbeard Ln.PacificPointeDr.S eabourneDr.Mystic Ln.Beachview Dr.Cattai l Cir. Silent Harbor Dr.Meri di a n Dr.AzureLn .Beachview Dr. FeatherDr. Meridian Dr.Scallop Ln.Blue Heron Dr.SilentBayCir.Sand Dune Ln.R o yc e L n. D e s mo n dL n. ShelterCoveCir. Terranova Cir. Astronautics Ln.Astronautics Ln.Astronautics Ln.Delta Ln.Harold Pl.Angelfish Ln.Barracuda Ln.Cadiz Cir.Shelburne Dr.Hampton Ln.Sandover Dr. Coveview Dr.Bristol Ln.Osterville Ln.Ashville Dr. Brightwater Dr. Orleans Dr.SeaburyLn. O cea n rid g e D r.OakbluffsLn.KennebunkLn.Longpoint Dr.SuffolkLn.Oceanrid g e Dr.ChillmarkLn.Oceanknoll Dr.SagatuckLn.TidalviewLn.E dgartownDr. Wellfleet Dr. Brightwater Dr.GreatpointCir.Chatham Ln.FordhamLn.BrightwaterDr. OceanridgeDr. Wellfleet Dr. Winthrop Dr.Brewster Ln.Wentworth Cir.Tidalridge Ln.Wa re ham Ln. Scenario Dr.Coral Cay Ln.Daisy Cir. Argosy Ave.AshtonD r . Redford Ln.CovingtonLn.FoxwoodLn.Cedarwood Dr.SpicewoodLn.Marigayle Cir. Estate Cir.Wanderly Ln.AshwoodLn.Charlotta Dr.Barclay Ln.Haviland Dr.PembrookLn.Wishfield Cir.Acorn Dr.Har vestLn.Foxglove Dr.Clovergreen Ln.Primrose Ln.Pearl Island Ct.Tiara Dr. Shady Glen Cir. Cabana Dr. Cape C oralLn.Cape Hope Cir. Utica Ave. Springfield Ave.Easy Ln.Grebe Ln.Abigail Ln.Savannah Ln.Rebecca Ln.Kennedy Ln.Hayley Ln.Kate Ln.Avery Ln.Avery Ln.Eleanor Ln.Kendall Dr. Noelle Dr. Noelle Dr. Hibiscus Cir. Sage Dr.Savannah Ln.Rebecca Ln.Kennedy Ln.Rancho Rd.5th St.4th St.6th St.7th St.8th St.9th St.10th St.11th St.12th St.Pacific Coast Hwy. Pacific Coast Hwy. N. Pacific Ave. S. Pacific Ave. N. Pacific Ave. S. Pacific Ave.Broadway14th St.15th St.16th St.17th St.18th St.S. Pacific Ave. N. Pacific Ave.19th St.20th St.21st St.22nd St.Anderson St.23rd St.24th St.25th St.26th St.Bayview Dr. Bayview Dr.Park Ave.McFadden Ave. Pacific View Ave. QuebecDr. Pacific Coast Hwy. Ashland Dr. Ames Trout St.Trout St.Pike St. Love St. Marlin St.Paschalls Ln.Tucana Dr.Fortuna Ln.MagnoliaSt.Patch Dr. Thompson Dr.Lamb Ln.Snowdon Ln.Hansen Ln.Sheridan Dr. Landers Dr.Wardlow Ln.Slayback Ln.Los Verdes Ln.Rustler Ct.PacificCityCir.PacificCityCir.Moonstone Ct. Marina Viking Way FivePoints Beachmont Rivergate Dr. G oldenrod C ir.G oldenrod C ir.P A C I F I C O C E A N Bolsa Chica W etlands Golden West College MeadowlarkCountryClub (County of Orange) HuntingtonCentralPark EdisonHighSchool NewlandHouse HuntingtonHighSchool SANTAANARIVERCivicCenter I 405 Marina High School Ocean View High School Boeing Seacliff Country Club County R Surf City Huntington Beach N S EW 2,000 0 2,000 4,000 Feet 0.45 0 0.45 Miles \\GISDATA\IS\GIS\Projects\StandardMaps\GeneralPlan2017.mxd CAUTIONWHEN USING THIS MAP Information shown hereon is a compilation of data from sources of varying accuracy and is provided as a convenience to the user. The City of Huntington Beach does not guarantee its completeness or accuracy. It is the user's responsibility to verify all information to their own satisfaction. Information Services Department HB GISRevisedAugust 2017 Draft Proposed General Plan City of Huntington Beach General Plan Designations Density/FAR range for each designation as noted in the legend below oras otherwise designated on the map or by Specific Plan. For more information call the Community DevelopmentDepartment at (714) 536-5271 Residential Low Density (max 7 du/ac)RL Medium Density (max 15 du/ac)RM Medium High Density (max 25 du/ac)RMH High Density (>30 du/ac)RH Commercial Neighborhood (max 0.35 FAR)CN General (max 1.5 FAR)CG Visitor Serving (max 0.5 FAR)CV Office (max 1.0 FAR)CO Industrial Industrial (max 0.75 FAR)I Research and Technology (max 1.0 FAR)RT Mixed Use Mixed UseM Open Space ConservationOS-C ParkOS-P RecreationOS-R Water RecreationOS-W ShoreOS-S Specific Plan -sp Specific Plan Overlay -mu Mixed Use Overlay Public PublicP Public/ Semipublic(underlying designation)PS HB -614-Item 10. - 292 Dept. ID CD 17-011 Page 1 of 18 Meeting Date: 9/18/2017 Statement of Issue: Transmitted for your consideration is General Plan Amendment (GPA) No. 14-002 and Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 14-001, which is a City-initiated comprehensive update to the Huntington Beach General Plan. The General Plan is the fundamental policy document of the City of Huntington Beach and serves as a policy guide for determining the appropriate physical development and character of Huntington Beach over an approximate 25-year planning horizon (to year 2040). On August 15, 2017, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on GPA No. 14- 002 and EIR No. 14-001 and unanimously recommended approval of the General Plan Update and Program EIR to the City Council with modifications. Financial Impact: Not Applicable. PLANNING COMMISSION AND STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION: A) Certify Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 14-001 by adopting Resolution No. 2017-40, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Certifying Program Environmental Impact Report No. 14-001 for General Plan Amendment No. 14-002 (General Plan Update)” (ATTACHMENT NO. 1); and, B) Approve General Plan Amendment No. 14-002 by adopting Resolution No. 2017-41, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Approving General Plan Amendment No. 14-002 for the General Plan Update” (ATTACHMENT NO. 2); and, C) Approve the CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations. (ATTACHMENT NO. 5) Alternative Action(s): The City Council may make the following alternative motion(s): 1. Deny Program Environmental Impact Report No. 14-001 and General Plan Amendment No. 14- 002. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR. CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 9/18/2017 SUBMITTED TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members SUBMITTED BY: Fred A. Wilson, City Manager PREPARED BY: Scott Hess, AICP, Director of Community Development SUBJECT: Certify Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 14-001 by adopting Resolution No. 2017-40 and approve General Plan Amendment (GPA) No. 14- 002 for the comprehensive update to the Huntington Beach General Plan by adopting Resolution No. 2017-41 HB -615-Item 10. - 293 Dept. ID CD 17-011 Page 2 of 18 Meeting Date: 9/18/2017 2. Continue Program Environmental Impact Report No. 14-001 and General Plan Amendment No. 14-002 and direct staff accordingly. Analysis: A. PROJECT PROPOSAL: Applicant: City of Huntington Beach Location: Citywide General Plan Amendment No. 14-002 represents a City-initiated request to approve a comprehensive update to the City of Huntington Beach General Plan. This community based General Plan Update includes: - A new Community Vision, 10 Guiding Principles and updated goals, policies and implementation programs; - Streamlining and consolidation of the required General Plan elements, which include Land Use, Circulation, Environmental Resources and Conservation, Natural and Environmental Hazards, Noise and Public Services and Infrastructure; - Internal consistency amongst the General Plan elements; - Updated background data to reflect changed conditions; - Introduction of a new Research and Technology land use designation, which is proposed to highlight and prioritize the City’s commitment to job growth and sustained economic vitality; and - A description of development capacity accommodating 7,228 residential units and 5,384,920 square feet of nonresidential uses above existing (2014) conditions over a 25- year period (to year 2040). The General Plan is the fundamental policy document of the City of Huntington Beach and serves as a policy guide for determining the appropriate physical development and character of Huntington Beach over an approximate 25-year planning horizon (to 2040). It provides the framework for management and utilization of the City’s physical and economic resources. The City is updating its General Plan to ensure that the plan remains a useful tool, keeps pace with change, and provides workable solutions to current and future issues. The General Plan Update provides a comprehensive policy framework that reflects growth, resource protection priorities, and recent state legislation, providing a blueprint for future development and resource conservation in Huntington Beach. The General Plan expresses the City’s goals and articulates the City’s intentions with respect to the rights and expectations of the general public, property owners, community interest groups, prospective investors, and business interests. State Law Requirements Each city and county in California is required to adopt a general plan and update the plan at regular intervals. Sections 65300–65404 and 65590–65590.1 of the California Government Code establish the requirements for the minimum contents of the general plan and rules for adoption and subsequent amendments. Together, these portions of state law and General Plan Guidelines that are prepared and maintained by the California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research establish the legal framework for the City of Huntington Beach General Plan Update. Under state law, each General Plan must contain at minimum the following seven elements: Land Use, Circulation, Housing, Noise, Open Space, Conservation, and Safety. A General Plan may also contain optional elements to address and emphasize other subjects of local importance. Existing General Plan HB -616-Item 10. - 294 Dept. ID CD 17-011 Page 3 of 18 Meeting Date: 9/18/2017 The City’s current General Plan was last comprehensively updated in 1996. The current General Plan contains 16 elements within four chapters. The table below summarizes the various elements of the existing General Plan, where the date of the most comprehensive update is shown and the date of the most recent minor amendment, if any, also is provided in parentheses. Existing General Plan Elements Most Recent Update Community Development Chapter Land Use Element 1996, (amended 2013) Urban Design Element 1996 Historic and Cultural Resources Element 2015 Economic Development Element 1996 Growth Management Element 2002, (amended 2004) Housing Element 2013 Infrastructure and Community Services Chapter Circulation Element 2013 Public Facilities and Public Services Element 1996, (amended 2002) Recreation and Community Services Element 1996, (amended 2012) Utilities Element 1996, (amended 2010) Natural Resources Chapter Environmental Resources/Conservation Element 1996, (amended 2004) Air Quality Element 1996 Coastal Element 2001, (amended 2011) Hazards Chapter Environmental Hazards Element 1996, (amended 2009) Noise Element 1996 Hazardous Materials Element 1996 Draft General Plan Update The draft General Plan Update incorporates components of the 1996 General Plan that are still applicable today, while reducing the number of optional elements and proposing a streamlined approach to the goals and policies. The General Plan Update also establishes a new Research and Technology (RT) land use designation within existing Industrially-designated areas, which highlights and prioritizes the city’s commitment to job growth and sustained economic growth and vitality. While the General Plan Update does not change any of the city’s existing residential designations or convert existing single-family residential designated areas to another land use, it allows for continued residential growth within the city’s current residential areas and established densities of those areas. The General Plan Update does not propose additional Specific Plans or changes to the maximum permitted density and intensity established by each adopted Specific Plan within the City. The General Plan Update also functions as a plan for the management of resources and infrastructure to accommodate projected growth over a 25-year period. General Plan Update Elements The General Plan Update is comprised of the following six elements: Proposed General Plan Update Elements Land Use Element Circulation Element Environmental Resources and Conservation Natural and Environmental Hazards Noise Infrastructure and Public Services The Historic and Cultural Resources, Housing, and Coastal Elements are not a part of this comprehensive General Plan Update. Below is a brief description of each element. HB -617-Item 10. - 295 Dept. ID CD 17-011 Page 4 of 18 Meeting Date: 9/18/2017 Land Use Element The Land Use Element is a required element pursuant to state planning law and guides future development and designates appropriate locations for different land uses including open spaces, parks, residences, commercial uses, industry, schools, and other public and community-serving uses. Consistent with state law, the Land Use Element establishes standards for residential density and nonresidential building intensity for lands within the planning area. The element also establishes the City’s long-term community design and economic development goals related to beach city culture and identity, community form, neighborhoods and districts, economic trends, and job development and retention strategies. Land Use Map As directed by the City Council, minimal land use changes are proposed as part of the General Plan Update. None of the City’s existing low density residential (i.e. – single-family residential) areas are proposed to change or convert to another land use designation. In addition, the General Plan Update does not propose changes to established densities of the City’s existing residential land use designations. The readability of the land use map, when compared to the existing land use map, is proposed to be improved by simplifying the land use designation annotations, deleting obsolete suffixes, embedding permitted intensity/floor area ratio (FAR) into the land use designation, and providing consistency between the HBZSO and General Plan for the commercial and industrial land use designations (except visitor-serving commercial). Research and Technology Land Use Designation To support economic development goals to attract new incubator and technology-oriented uses, a Research and Technology (RT) land use designation within existing Industrially designated areas along the Gothard Street corridor and within the northwest industrial area south of the Boeing campus bounded by Bolsa Avenue to the north, Bolsa Chica Street to the west, Springdale Street to the east, and Edinger Avenue to the south is proposed to accommodate these types of future uses. The Research and Technology designation would provide a flexible platform for both industrial and commercial uses that do not fit into the city’s historically commercial or industrial areas. Many new business types require this flexibility as they may need both commercial and industrial components to conduct business. When assessing Huntington Beach’s location, employment, and land use potential, technology manufacturing and technology services industries present high potential for growth. The RT designation would provide for a wide variety of nonresidential mixed-use development and encourage both employment uses and commercial uses designed to accommodate employees. Uses may include clean and green manufacturing and industrial uses (e.g., medical devices, clean air technology), research and development uses, technology, warehousing, business parks, professional offices, limited eating and drinking establishments that have an industrial component (e.g., brewery), restaurants and cafes to serve the employment uses and surrounding residential neighborhoods and similar neighborhood commercial uses. Additionally, technology firms will demand newer or refurbished multi-tenant buildings that offer modern, high speed and high bandwidth infrastructure. Therefore, the Land Use Element identifies goals and policies that will focus on promoting development of a strong inventory of adequately improved and competitive industrial buildings within these areas that provide the resources and technological capacity desired by businesses in this industry. Development Capacity HB -618-Item 10. - 296 Dept. ID CD 17-011 Page 5 of 18 Meeting Date: 9/18/2017 The Land Use Element establishes a development capacity for the City over a 25-year period (to 2040). The General Plan Update accommodates an additional 7,228 dwelling units and 5,384,920 square feet of non-residential uses over 2014 conditions. Circulation Element The Circulation Element is a required element of the General Plan, and pursuant to state planning law, defines the transportation network and describes how people move throughout the planning area, including the streets, railways, transit routes, bicycle paths, and sidewalks. The transportation network is a major determinant of development form and land use. Factors such as, but not limited to, traffic patterns and congestion, access to transit, and ease and safety of walking and biking may determine where people choose to live, work, and visit. The Circulation Element was comprehensively updated in 2013. As such, changes to the Circulation Element are minimal consisting of mostly updating figures and exhibits and addressing new components of state law. Environmental Resources and Conservation Element The Environmental Resources and Conservation Element is a required element of the General Plan and meets the Open Space and Conservation Element requirements of state planning law. The Environmental Resources and Conservation Element describes the conservation, development, and use of natural resources (including open space), as well as parks and recreation opportunities, in Huntington Beach. This element also addresses key issues related to environmental resources and conservation, including biological resource areas, energy and water conservation, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and coastal resources. Natural and Environmental Hazards Element The Natural and Environmental Hazards Element meets the mandated Safety Element requirements of state planning law. Consistent with state law, the Natural and Environmental Hazards Element identifies areas prone to natural hazards and potentially hazardous conditions including ground shaking and surface rupture from earthquakes; ground failure; tsunami, seiche, and dam failure; slope instability leading to mudslides and landslides; subsidence, liquefaction, and other geologic hazards; flooding; urban fires; hazardous materials; and evacuation routes. Noise Element The Noise Element is a required General Plan element and, consistent with state law, describes the existing noise environment in Huntington Beach, identifies noise sources and problems affecting community safety and comfort, and establishes policies and programs that limit community exposure to excessive noise levels. The Noise Element sets standards for acceptable noise levels by various land uses and provides guidance for how to balance the noise created by an active and economically healthy community with the community’s desire for peace and quiet. Public Services and Infrastructure Element The Public Services and Infrastructure Element is an optional element that describes the water delivery system, wastewater collection and treatment system, stormwater and urban runoff, solid waste disposal, electricity, communications, and infrastructure finance. This element also identifies plans for preparing for health and safety hazards, including police protection, fire protection, marine safety, emergency response and preparedness, and airport safety. Although the Public Services and Infrastructure is an optional element, public services/infrastructure was identified as a top priority of the community and the GPAC during the General Plan Update process. Therefore, consistent with City Council direction, this optional element is included in the General Plan Update. Each element is organized into the following sections: ■ Introduction and Purpose: This section describes the purpose and scope of the element, and specifies the relationship of the element to other elements in the General Plan. HB -619-Item 10. - 297 Dept. ID CD 17-011 Page 6 of 18 Meeting Date: 9/18/2017 ■ Plan: This section provides important background information and key trends that provide a strategic basis for city policy. Many of the elements illustrate various opportunities, constraints, classifications, policies, and standards in either graphic or tabular form. For example, the Land Use Element contains a Land Use Map and a Land Use Plan that identify and describe the locations of future uses by type, density, and intensity. ■ Issues, Goals, and Policies: This section identifies the most important community issues related to the element topic. For each issue, goals are identified to provide direction by stating a desired future end state. Policies are identified as guides for the City Council, Planning Commission, and City staff when reviewing development proposals and making other decisions that affect future development and conservation. Policies represent a commitment by the City to pursue a particular course of action, or to take action in the future consistent with the direction stated in the related goal. Policies are presented as written statements, tables, diagrams, and maps. All of these components must be considered together when making planning decisions. ■ Implementation Programs: Implementation Programs describe how the City will implement identified goals and policies. Unless otherwise stated, all policies are to be implemented on an as-appropriate or as-feasible basis, considering surrounding physical and environmental context and financial resources. The implementation programs are located in Chapter VIII, Implementation of the General Plan Update. Elements Not Included in General Plan Update Housing Element: The Housing Element is a required element of the General Plan and serves as a policy guide to address the housing needs of the residents of Huntington Beach. The element outlines housing needs, barriers or constraints to providing housing, and actions proposed to address these concerns over an eight-year period. The most recent Housing Element was adopted in 2013 and anticipates housing needs within Huntington Beach from 2013 through 2021. The Housing Element is not a part of the General Plan Update as it is on a separate schedule pursuant to state housing element law. The next Housing Element update will begin in 2020. Coastal Element: The Coastal Element addresses the requirements of the California Coastal Act within the portions of Huntington Beach that are located within the Coastal Zone. Goals and policies in this element guide civic decisions regarding growth, development, enhancement, and preservation of coastal resources. This element will be updated after adoption of the General Plan Update and is subject to approval by the California Coastal Commission. Historic and Cultural Resources Element: This element was recently comprehensively updated in 2015 and, as such, is not considered a part of the General Plan Update. However, upon adoption of the General Plan Update, it will be reformatted to be consistent with the format of the General Plan Update. Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 14-001 analyzes the potential environmental effects of the General Plan Update. The draft Program Environmental Impact Report discusses potential adverse impacts in the areas of aesthetics and visual resources, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology, soils, and mineral resources, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise and vibration, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation and traffic, and utilities and services systems. The direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of the proposed General Plan Update are addressed, as are the impacts of project alternatives. The EIR consists of three volumes. Volume I consists of the Technical Background Report, which includes supporting information for the draft EIR and also discusses the regulatory framework. Volume II is the Draft Program EIR and contains the environmental analysis and the discussion and analysis of project alternatives. Volume III contains the Appendices. Volumes I through III were HB -620-Item 10. - 298 Dept. ID CD 17-011 Page 7 of 18 Meeting Date: 9/18/2017 circulated for a minimum 45-day public review period. The Final EIR, which includes the comments received during the public review period, responses to those comments and text changes to the Draft EIR to clarify or correct information in response to comments or as identified as necessary by staff, is provided in Chapters eight through 10 of the Draft Program EIR/ Volume II. Chapters eight through 11 of the Final EIR are provided in Attachment No. 4. B. BACKGROUND As mentioned, the City’s existing General Plan consists of 16 elements and was last comprehensively updated in 1996. In October 2013, the City Council approved a contract and budget to retain PMC, Inc., now Michael Baker International, to assist the City with the General Plan Update. The City Council also provided direction on the makeup of the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) and the type and makeup of various task forces to be convened during the General Plan Update process. Below is a timeline of the General Plan Update process and a listing of various public meetings that have occurred over the course of the project. Community Visioning Task Force Meetings Stakeholder Interviews 1/30-31/14 Biological Resources 1/29/14 & 7/17/1 Beach bonfire 3/19/14 Sea Level Rise 2/12/14 & 1/21/15 Community Workshop 3/27/14 GHG/Sustainability 3/13/14 & 7/15/14 Community Workshop 3/29/14 Market Trends 10/15/14 Pop-Up Workshop 4/19/14 Circulation 2/22/17 City Council Study Sessions & Meetings GPAC Meetings Planning Commission Study Sessions & Hearings 9/2/14 1/20/15 3/16/15 7/6/15 1/17/17 8/21/17 EIR Meetings 10/21/15 6/7/17 3/26/14 6/4/14 8/6/14 9/10/14 1/21/15 4/1/15 6/3/15 7/22/14 6/23/15 7/6/15 (joint SS w/ City Council) 1/24/17 6/13/17 6/27/17 7/11/17 7/25/17 8/8/17 8/15/17 (public hearing) In addition to the meetings listed, a number of other meetings, events and public outreach efforts occurred throughout the process. The City made presentations to various groups such as a homeowners’ association and city boards and committees at their regular meetings, attended community events to publicize the General Plan Update, and conducted online surveys. In March 2015, the City Council directed staff to streamline the General Plan Update including reducing the amount of optional elements and condensing the overall General Plan to the extent feasible while still complying with state law. In July 2015, the General Plan Update project team presented goals and policies that were reviewed by the GPAC and land use alternatives for several opportunity areas identified in the economic conditions and market trends report prepared for the General Plan Update to the City Council. The City Council recommended minimal land use map changes. The land use map changes directed by the City Council are limited to properties along the Gothard corridor and within the Northwest Industrial area and reflected in the proposed Research and Technology designation on the draft General Plan Map. Changes to the May 2017 Draft General Plan Update On May 22, 2017, the draft General Plan Update was made available for public review in conjunction with the associated draft Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Since the public HB -621-Item 10. - 299 Dept. ID CD 17-011 Page 8 of 18 Meeting Date: 9/18/2017 review draft was made available, a number of changes have been made to the document. The changes represent edits made by staff to clean up typos or inadvertent errors in the text, changes as a result of the responses to comments from the public on the draft General Plan Update and Program EIR and changes made by the Planning Commission during the public hearing on August 15, 2017. The changes are shown in strikeout/underline format in Attachment No. 3. Only pages that have changed since the May 2017, draft was made available are included. C. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AND RECOMMENDATION: On August 15, 2017, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the General Plan Update and Program EIR. During the meeting, staff presented an overview of the draft General Plan and Program EIR. Four members of the public spoke during the public hearing portion of the meeting. One speaker, representing the Ocean View School District, expressed support for the changes made to the General Plan Update as a result of the district’s comment letters and thanked the City for addressing their concerns. One speaker spoke in opposition to the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program (GGRP), which is part of the Program EIR, being used as mitigation and suggested that the City not adopt the GGRP as mitigation. It should be noted that the GGRP is not considered mitigation for the General Plan Update, and thus, is not necessary to be adopted as mitigation. The next speaker spoke regarding the future of retail zoning, housing needs in the City, autonomous vehicles and the proposed Research and Technology designation. The final speaker, representing the Building Industry Association of Orange County, raised concerns that the number of dwelling units identified in the General Plan and Program EIR is too low and does not reflect the current and future housing demand. After the public hearing was closed, the Planning Commission discussed the Program EIR and made several changes to mitigation measures, which have been incorporated into the draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) and are included in Attachment No. 4. The Planning Commission then discussed the draft General Plan Update at length and made many changes to the document through straw votes. The changes made by the Planning Commission are reflected in the recommended action and provided as Attachment No. 3 to this report. It should be noted that the changes made by the Planning Commission to the draft General Plan and mitigation measures of the Program EIR did not affect the impact conclusions or trigger new environmental impacts that had not been previously identified. Planning Commission Action on August 15, 2017: The motion made by Scandura, seconded by Crowe, to recommend certification of Program EIR No. 14-001 with modifications to the City Council as adequate and complete in accordance with CEQA requirements by approving draft City Council Resolution No. 2017-40 and forward to the City Council for adoption carried by the following vote: AYES: Crowe, Garcia, Grant, Kalmick, Mandic, Ray, Scandura NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED The motion made by Scandura, seconded by Kalmick, to approve General Plan Amendment No. 14-002 by approving draft City Council Resolution No. 2017-41, which includes the CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Consideration and forward to the City Council for adoption carried by the following vote: AYES: Crowe, Garcia, Grant, Kalmick, Mandic, Ray, Scandura NOES: None ABSENT: None HB -622-Item 10. - 300 Dept. ID CD 17-011 Page 9 of 18 Meeting Date: 9/18/2017 ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED D. STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION: The proposed General Plan Update has been prepared to be consistent with state law requirements related to General Plans (Sections 65300–65404 and 65590–65590.1 of the California Government Code). The General Plan Update incorporates legislation that has been enacted since 1996 and resolves an existing inconsistency between the Land Use Element and the Circulation Element, for which consistency is required pursuant to state law. Additionally, the General Plan Update reflects the Community Vision and Guiding Principles, which are located in the Introduction chapter of the General Plan Update and provide a foundation for the goals and policies of the General Plan. The community vision was crafted by the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) and the project team (City staff and consultants) based on input gathered during an early community engagement phase of the project. The guiding principles, which support the community vision, were created through the work of the GPAC and reviewed by the City Council early in the General Plan Update process. The goals and policies within the General Plan Update largely represent the work of the GPAC through an extensive review undertaken during their meetings in 2015. Finally, the General Plan Update reflects the March 2015 City Council direction to streamline the General Plan Update including reducing the amount of optional elements and condensing the overall General Plan to the extent feasible while still complying with state law. The following is a discussion of changes and new topics that are addressed in the proposed General Plan Update that warrant further discussion and analysis. Land Use Map/ Research and Technology Designation As directed by the City Council, minimal land use changes are proposed as part of the General Plan Update. None of the City’s existing low density residential (i.e. – single-family residential) areas are proposed to change or convert to another land use designation. In addition, the General Plan Update does not propose changes to established densities of the City’s existing residential land use designations. The readability of the land use map, when compared to the existing land use map, is proposed to be improved by simplifying the land use designation annotations, deleting obsolete suffixes, embedding permitted intensity/floor area ratio (FAR) into the land use designation, and providing consistency between the HBZSO and General Plan for the commercial and industrial land use designations (except visitor-serving commercial). One new land use designation is proposed within existing Industrial-designated areas. The new Research and Technology (RT) land use designation is proposed to permit a wide variety of nonresidential mixed-use development in industrial areas along the Gothard Street corridor (from south of Edinger Avenue to Ellis Avenue) and within the northwest industrial areas (south of the Boeing campus and specific plan area) that are undergoing or poised for transformation to support changing employment demand. A copy of the proposed General Plan Land Use Map is provided in Attachment No. 7. The RT designation encourages employment uses and commercial uses designed to accommodate employees while continuing to allow traditional industrial uses such as manufacturing and production. Associated goals and policies of the Land Use Element, in recognition of the growth potential in the RT areas, set the framework for the City to support business retention and growth; support and improve technology infrastructure to meet the needs of existing and potential future businesses; encourage and assist existing and potential future property owners to update, modernize and expand their properties; and provide incentives to retain, expand, and capture new businesses, including research and development industries and start-ups. The RT area would provide a flexible platform for both industrial and commercial uses that do not fit into the City’s historically commercial or industrial areas. Many new business types require this flexibility as they may need both commercial and industrial components to conduct business and grow a business. HB -623-Item 10. - 301 Dept. ID CD 17-011 Page 10 of 18 Meeting Date: 9/18/2017 The intent of the Research and Technology designation is not to limit existing uses, but to expand what existing and new uses can do within their space. While the exact list of permitted uses would be detailed in a forthcoming amendment to the zoning code, the Research and Technology description, as proposed in the Land Use Element, is broad enough to cover a wide range of uses. Most existing uses could fit within the RT description, as the uses in the proposed RT areas have naturally transitioned to lighter industrial uses over time. In addition, based on an inventory of existing uses in the Gothard RT area collected in July 2017, very few uses, if any, would become nonconforming with a re-designation to RT. However, this issue would be more appropriately discussed and vetted through the establishment of the RT zoning district and associated land use controls and development standards, which would require outreach to the businesses and public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council. It should also be noted that if a use becomes nonconforming as a result of the new RT land use designation and subsequent zoning, a business will still be able to remain in operation as well as change ownership, make improvements to the site and building, legally obtain building permits and certificates of occupancy, and make additions to the structures on the property as allowed pursuant to Chapter 236 of the HBZSO. Development Capacity The General Plan Update establishes a development capacity of an additional 7,228 dwelling units and 5,384,920 square feet of nonresidential uses in the City over a 25-year period (to year 2040). The development capacity represents the realistic amount of development anticipated in the City based on the distribution of land uses reflected on the General Plan Land Use Map (Figure LU-2 of the Land Use Element). The development capacity is not a target or goal for development of the City. Of the 7,228 units, approximately 2,000 units account for units permitted under the existing zoning and remaining residential development capacities for the Holly Seacliff, Downtown, and Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plans. In addition, since the baseline number of 78,175 units was established at the onset of the General Plan Update process, approximately 3,000 units have been completed or permitted in the City that would be counted toward the 7,228 units. The remaining approximately 2,228 units could be developed throughout the City in accordance with the residential permitted uses and densities established on the General Plan Land Use Map through the 2040 horizon year of the General Plan Update. This equates to an approximate average of 100 units per year over the remaining 22-year period. This is a modest amount of residential development given that the City has averaged approximately 320 units a year over the previous 20- year period. Even when adding in the units permitted pursuant to existing adopted specific plans, this would equate to an approximate average of 200 units per year, which is still well below the previous 20-year average. In addition, it is worth noting that the City has permitted less than 100 units in only five of the last 20 years and less than 200 units in only seven of the last 20 years. Although the residential development capacity of the General Plan Update provides for a conservative amount of residential growth, it represents the increasingly built out nature of the City and the anticipated slowing of residential development in the future, therefore, reflecting a realistic and reasonable residential development capacity. The nonresidential development capacity reflects anticipated development as permitted by the nonresidential land uses and intensities of the General Plan Land Use Map. The anticipated development capacity largely accommodates growth in the City’s commercial and industrial areas as supported by the goals and policies of the Land Use Element that provide for enhancing the City’s tourism and hospitality sector and focused revitalization within the new Research and Technology designated areas. Traffic and Circulation The proposed development capacity anticipated by the General Plan, in conjunction with regional growth, will result in increases in traffic in the City over time. The Circulation Element of the General Plan Update is required to address how the transportation needs of the community will be HB -624-Item 10. - 302 Dept. ID CD 17-011 Page 11 of 18 Meeting Date: 9/18/2017 met based on assumptions about the amount of development that could occur within the City from implementation of the Land Use Map and the goals and policies of the Land Use Element. The Circulation Element includes an Arterial Highway Plan, which shows the planned layout of the City’s roadway network and is designed to accommodate the 2040 build out of the General Plan. The Circulation Element also includes performance standards for citywide level of service for traffic signal controlled intersections during peak hours. The General Plan Update Program EIR analyzed the potential traffic impacts of the development capacity on the proposed Arterial Highway Plan. As indicated in the Circulation Element and Program EIR, the anticipated development capacity could result in the addition of approximately 148,000 average daily trips on the City’s roads, which equates to an approximate nine percent increase over existing (2014) conditions. According to the Program EIR, this increase in traffic can be adequately accommodated by the Arterial Highway Plan for most of the City’s intersections. In addition to the intersection improvements necessary for buildout of the Arterial Highway Plan, the Program EIR recommends intersection improvements at the Beach Boulevard/Heil Avenue, Brookhurst Street/Adams Avenue, and Gothard Street/Center Avenue intersections. With implementation of improvements at these intersections, acceptable levels of service consistent with the goals and policies of the Circulation Element would be achieved. Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program Since the last General Plan was adopted in 1996, various state laws have been enacted to address climate change and greenhouse gases (GHGs) at the state level including SB 97, which was enacted in 2007 and requires analysis of greenhouse gas emissions as part of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review process. AB 97 also allows lead agencies to prepare qualified greenhouse gas reduction plans to address a community’s greenhouse gas emissions at the programmatic level enabling future projects to tier from the plan and undergo a streamlined CEQA process. Many cities adopt these plans as Climate Action Plans or Sustainability Action Plans, which are typically stand-alone documents that include various measures the agency will implement or require to be implemented by future project applicants. At the onset of the General Plan Update, the City Council directed staff to prepare a stand-alone citywide Sustainability Action Plan, with measures committing the City to reducing greenhouse gas emissions consistent with state reduction targets. In March 2015, the City Council directed staff to reduce the scope of the Sustainability Action Plan and comply with the minimum requirements of CEQA while still realizing the streamlining benefits of a qualified greenhouse gas reduction plan. As such, consistent with the amended CEQA guidelines, the analysis in the Program EIR includes an inventory and forecast of the City’s GHG emissions and a greenhouse gas reduction program (GGRP), which establishes a comprehensive approach to reduce GHG emissions in line with state reduction targets through voluntary strategies that emphasize economic viability and that are consistent with community priorities. It establishes existing, projected and target levels of GHG emissions for Huntington Beach and shows how the community can achieve the targets if the identified strategies are implemented, thereby, meeting the requirements of CEQA Guidelines section 15183.5(b). There are no current state or federal laws requiring the City to implement the greenhouse gas reduction strategies and measures identified in the GGRP. To that end, implementation of the GGRP is considered voluntary and the degree to which the City pursues each strategy remains a policy decision. It should be noted that because the City has taken this approach, the impact analysis in the Program EIR concludes that GHG emission impacts are significant and unavoidable as there is no certainty that the City will achieve reductions consistent with state targets through voluntary implementation. As noted previously in this report, the City may still adopt the General Plan Update even with finding that there will be significant and unavoidable impacts as defined by CEQA as long as it adopts a Statement of Overriding Considerations, which describes that the benefits of the General Plan Update project to the City outweigh its potential significant and unavoidable impacts. HB -625-Item 10. - 303 Dept. ID CD 17-011 Page 12 of 18 Meeting Date: 9/18/2017 Coastal Hazards The Natural and Environmental Hazards Element includes a section to address Coastal Hazards, describing the City’s potential risks from high tides, high surf, flooding and coastal erosion, which currently occur, and how these hazards may be exacerbated if sea level rise occurs as projected. One of the technical studies prepared for the General Plan Update includes a sea level rise vulnerability assessment. This assessment models the City’s risks under various scenarios and assesses the City’s vulnerability in accordance with adopted Coastal Commission guidance. The sea level rise vulnerability assessment is discussed in the Coastal Hazards section and it is acknowledged that there is an inherent degree of uncertainty in sea level rise projections. In addition to the vulnerability assessment, a draft Coastal Resiliency Program has been prepared, in accordance with adopted Coastal Commission guidance, and outlines strategies the City can implement in the future to minimize potential impacts from sea level rise. The coastal resiliency program is a stand-alone document intended to serve as a bridge document between the General Plan and a future update to the City’s Local Coastal Program, which will more fully address the topic of sea level rise as required by the Coastal Commission. In terms of how sea level rise and coastal hazards are addressed in the General Plan Update, Figure HAZ-6 (page 5-12) includes a map identifying potential sea level rise hazard areas in the year 2050, which indicates that there is no certainty that sea level rise will occur in the areas projected on the map. Policies HAZ-2.A through H provide that the City will promote appropriate land uses and development patterns in potential sea level rise risk areas, implement priority measures to reduce and mitigate potential impacts to property and infrastructure, continue to support sand replenishment projects, provide information to property owners about coastal hazard risks, monitor potential ocean surf line hazards, provide sufficient warning and evacuation assistance to community members impacts by coastal flooding events, and increase the City’s understanding of potential vulnerabilities to infrastructure and increase funding for improvements accordingly. As described, the policies included in the General Plan related to sea level rise more generally address coastal hazards as a whole and do not place additional restrictions on property owners consistent with City Council direction. Program EIR The EIR provides a detailed analysis of potential impacts associated with the General Plan Update. It is intended to serve as an informational document for decision makers. The General Plan Update EIR identifies significant or potentially significant environmental effects, as well as ways in which those impacts can be reduced to less than significant levels, whether through the goals and policies of the General Plan Update, mitigation measures (MMs), or through the implementation of alternatives to the project. In a practical sense, EIRs function as a technique for fact-finding, allowing future applicants, concerned citizens, and staff an opportunity to collectively review and evaluate baseline conditions and project impacts through a process of full disclosure. The General Plan Update EIR has been prepared as a Program EIR consistent with Section 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines, which examines the environmental impacts of a series of actions that can be characterized as one large project and are related either: geographically; as logical parts in the chain of contemplated actions; in connection with issuance of rules, regulations, plans, or other general criteria to govern the conduct of a continuing program; or as individual activities carried out under the same authorizing statutory or regulatory authority and having generally similar environmental effects which can be mitigated in similar ways. The series of actions analyzed in the EIR is the potential future development within the City during the 25-year horizon of the General Plan Update, to year 2040. While the analysis identifies the potential impacts that would result from implementation of growth anticipated by the General Plan Update, the level of analysis does not contain detail to the level of site specificity, nor is it intended HB -626-Item 10. - 304 Dept. ID CD 17-011 Page 13 of 18 Meeting Date: 9/18/2017 to be accurate to this level of specificity. The analysis within the EIR identifies a range of potential impacts resulting from future development that would be allowed under the General Plan Update and mitigation measures to reduce potentially significant impacts. Any proposal for future development within the City must be reviewed for consistency with the General Plan Update. As addressed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(c), (1) if a later activity would have effects not analyzed in the EIR (to include both the draft EIR and the Final EIR), a new Initial Study would need to be prepared leading to a Negative Declaration/ Mitigated Negative Declaration or EIR, or (2) if the lead agency finds that, pursuant to Section 15162, no new effects could occur or no new mitigation measures are required, the agency can approve the project as being within the scope of the General Plan Update EIR and no new environmental documentation would be required. Thus, the City, as the lead agency, could rely on this EIR in conjunction with its consideration of subsequent project development, as deemed appropriate and consistent with the requirements of CEQA. Scope of EIR Analysis The EIR evaluated impacts in the topical areas of: Air Quality, Aesthetics and Visual Resources, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology, Soils and Mineral Resources, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, Noise, Population, Housing and Employment, Public Services, Recreation, Transportation and Traffic, and Utilities and Service System. No impacts to Agricultural and Forestry Resources were determined and therefore, the EIR does not provide further analysis of this issue. A summary of key issues and mitigation measures resulting from the EIR analysis is provided in the August 15, 2017, Planning Commission staff report (Attachment No. 8). A complete listing of the recommended mitigation measures is provided in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program provided in Attachment No. 4. A detailed description of the EIR process as well as a description of the significant impacts is provided below in the Environmental Status section of this report. Alternatives to the Proposed Project Section 15126.6(a) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR describe a range of reasonable alternatives to a project or to the location of a project that could feasibly attain the basic project objectives as proposed, while reducing significant impacts identified. An EIR is not required to consider every alternative conceivable; rather, it must consider a range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision making and public participation. The EIR analyzed three alternatives, which are described below. Alternative 1: No Project Alternative This alternative assumes the continued implementation of the existing 1996 General Plan. Under this alternative, the existing General Plan land uses would remain in place and development in the City would occur in a reasonable manner as allowed by the land use plan and goals and policies of the existing General Plan. Development under this alternative would result in a different buildout compared to the buildout of the proposed General Plan Update. The No Project Alternative would result in a greater number of residential units when compared to the General Plan Update but a lesser amount of nonresidential square footage compared to the General Plan Update as described in the table below. General Plan Update 2040 buildout Alternative 1 2040 buildout Residential Units 85,403 units 86,499 units Nonresidential buildout 50,410,990 square feet 45,748,000 square feet HB -627-Item 10. - 305 Dept. ID CD 17-011 Page 14 of 18 Meeting Date: 9/18/2017 Impacts under this alternative would be similar to the impact conclusions of the General Plan Update, although to a lesser extent. The significant and unavoidable impact to utilities/water supply identified for the General Plan Update would be greater under this alternative due to the increase in the number of residential units anticipated when compared to the proposed General Plan Update. Alternative 2: Full Implementation of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program (GGRP Alternative) Under this alternative, the City would implement the entirety of the draft GGRP, which is currently proposed as a voluntary program as part of the General Plan Update. The draft GGRP contains a suite of strategies capable of reducing the City’s GHG emissions to levels at or below the following, which are consistent with the state’s long-term GHG reduction goals: • 2020 GHG reduction target 1,234,260 MTCO2e • 2040 GHG reduction target 575,990 MTCO2e Under this alternative, the draft GGRP would no longer be voluntary and instead would be a required implementation action and undertaken in its entirety, as part of approval of the General Plan Update. The GGRP Alternative would eliminate one of the significant and unavoidable impacts identified for the General Plan Update and is considered the environmentally superior alternative. Alternative 3: Gothard Corridor Land Use Change (Gothard Corridor Alternative) The Gothard Corridor Alternative assumes that all land uses within the Gothard Corridor would be changed from an Industrial land use designation to the new Research and Technology land use designation proposed under the General Plan Update. Under this Alternative, approximately 146 additional acres of land designated as Industrial would be changed to Research and Technology. As a result of this land use change, it is assumed that an additional approximately 990,000 additional square feet of nonresidential development would be anticipated. The Gothard Corridor Alternative would result in increased noise and greenhouse gas emission impacts when compared to the proposed impacts associated with the General Plan Update as a result of increased vehicle trips and emissions due to anticipated increased development potential. However, the impact conclusion of significant and unavoidable would remain the same as identified for the proposed General Plan Update. Statement of Overriding Considerations Environmental impacts associated with implementation of a project may not always be mitigated to a level considered less than significant. In such cases, a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be prepared prior to approval of a project, and in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15091 and 15093. Because implementation of the proposed project would create significant unavoidable impacts as described above in the areas of Air Quality, Cultural Resources, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Noise and Utilities (Water Supply), a Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC) is required to describe the specific reasons for approving a project (in this case the General Plan Update), based on information contained within the Final EIR, as well as any other information in the public record. The SOC is included as an exhibit to the draft City Council Resolution certifying the Program EIR and is provided in Attachment No. 5. Public Comments on the Draft EIR and Errata Changes During the public review period, the City of Huntington Beach received a total of 11 comment letters on the EIR: one from a state agency, six from local agencies and organizations including one from the Environmental Board, and four from individuals. The City also received 13 comment letters on the General Plan Update during the comment period and four draft EIR comment letters after the close of the comment period. In response to the comments received, the final EIR includes text changes for the purpose of clarification or correction. The text changes do not change the HB -628-Item 10. - 306 Dept. ID CD 17-011 Page 15 of 18 Meeting Date: 9/18/2017 conclusions of the EIR analysis. All of the comments are adequately addressed in the Response to Comments (Attachment No. 4). Staff and the Planning Commission are recommending certification of Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 14-001 because it adequately analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed project, identifies project alternatives, provides mitigation measures to lessen the project’s impacts, and has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). E. SUMMARY As discussed in this report, the General Plan Update has been prepared in accordance with the provisions of state law related to General Plans and updates the City’s 21-year old existing General Plan. Staff and the Planning Commission are recommending approval of the General Plan Update for the following reasons: - Incorporates state legislation enacted since the previous (1996) General Plan was adopted; - Provides for consistency among the required elements; - Resolves an inconsistency between the Circulation Element and the Land Use Element; - Is consistent with the March 2015 City Council direction to streamline the General Plan and reduce the number of optional elements while still complying with state law; - Reflects the Community Vision and Guiding Principles as established by the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) based on community input; - Provides for economic and social benefits to improve the quality of life for the City’s residents that outweigh the adverse environmental effects of the Plan; - Establishes a development capacity and policy framework for determining the appropriate physical development and character of Huntington Beach over an approximate 25-year planning horizon (to 2040); and - Updates the goals and policies to ensure the General Plan remains a useful tool for the future in guiding City decisions regarding land use, the design and/or character of buildings and open spaces, the conservation of existing housing and the provision of new dwelling units, the provision of supporting infrastructure and public services, the protection of environmental resources, the allocation of fiscal resources, and the protection of residents from natural and human-caused hazards. Environmental Status: In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Program EIR No. 14-001 was prepared by Atkins to analyze the potential environmental impacts associated with implementation of the General Plan Update as well as identify appropriate mitigation measures. The Draft EIR was distributed to the Planning Commission for review at the start of the 45-day public comment period on May 22, 2017. The Final Draft Program EIR, including the Response to Comments and all text changes as a result of the public comment period was distributed electronically to the Planning Commission and posted on the City’s website on August 4, 2017. The required CEQA procedure that was followed is outlined below: October 8, 2015 October 8, 2015 to November 6, 2015 A Notice of Preparation was filed with the State Clearinghouse to notify public of intent to prepare an EIR. Notice of Preparation available for 30 day public review and comment period. October 21, 2015 A Public Scoping Meeting was held to solicit comments and issue areas to be studied in the EIR. HB -629-Item 10. - 307 Dept. ID CD 17-011 Page 16 of 18 Meeting Date: 9/18/2017 May 19, 2017 May 22, 2017 to July 7, 2017 A Notice of Completion was filed with the State Clearinghouse. Draft EIR available for public review and comment for forty-five days. June 7, 2017 A Public Comment Meeting was held to solicit comments on the adequacy of the Draft EIR. August 4, 2017 Final EIR is made available to the public and organizations, agencies and individuals that commented on the draft EIR August 15, 2017 Public hearing before Planning Commission to recommend certification of Program EIR No. 14-001 to the City Council. Through the use of mitigation measures identified in the EIR and the goals and policies proposed in the draft General Plan Update, most of the potentially adverse impacts associated with the project can be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. However, there are five areas for which significant adverse environmental impacts anticipated that cannot be eliminated through mitigation measures. The significant adverse environmental impacts are as follows: Air Quality Project Specific – Due to the speculative nature of estimating emissions of individual projects at the programmatic level of the General Plan Update, emissions cannot be quantified (as there is no project level data) to establish whether the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) thresholds would be exceeded. As such, the EIR concludes that the project would result in a significant and unavoidable impact due to the violation of an air quality standard and exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Cumulative – Due to the speculative nature of estimating emissions of individual projects at the programmatic level of the General Plan Update, emissions cannot be quantified (as there is no project level data) to establish whether the SCAQMD thresholds would be exceeded in a region determined to be in nonattainment. Therefore, the EIR concludes that the General Plan Update could result in a cumulative contribution to an air quality impact and the impact is significant and unavoidable. Cultural Resources Cumulative – Because it is currently infeasible to determine whether future development under the General Plan Update would result in the demolition or removal of historical, archaeological, and paleontological resources within the planning area, the incremental contribution of the General Plan Update to the cumulative effects could be cumulatively considerable and therefore, the EIR concludes that this would result in a significant and unavoidable impact to cultural resources. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Cumulative – The EIR includes an analysis of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions as a result of the General Plan Update and includes a Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program (GGRP), which identifies strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to below state reduction targets. However, the General Plan Update does not propose to implement the GGRP as the City is not mandated by laws or regulations to do so. To that end, there is no certainty that GHG emissions would be reduced to levels in line state targets and the impact is concluded to be significant and unavoidable. HB -630-Item 10. - 308 Dept. ID CD 17-011 Page 17 of 18 Meeting Date: 9/18/2017 Noise Project Specific and Cumulative – The General Plan Update would result in an increase in average daily trips (ADT) associated with future development, increasing ambient roadway noise levels across the City, some of which would exceed established thresholds. As the increase in ambient noise levels is vehicle related, there are no feasible mitigation measures that would reduce ambient noise levels and exposure below the identified thresholds. Thus, the General Plan Update would result in a significant and unavoidable noise impact. In addition to increases in ambient noise levels due to roadway noise, future development under the General Plan Update has the potential to generate construction vibration levels exceeding established thresholds at nearby sensitive receptors (i.e. – those within 50 feet of pile driving activities). Although future development would comply with General Plan policies and proposed mitigation measures to reduce impacts, vibration levels would not be reduced to a level of less than significant. Therefore, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Utilities (Water Supply) Project Specific and Cumulative – Given the uncertainty of water supply across the western United States and throughout the state of California, a future supply deficit would result in a significant and unavoidable impact. Notwithstanding the adoption and implementation of the recommended mitigation measures, approval of the General Plan Update requires that a Statement of Overriding Considerations be adopted by the City Council, finding that the economic, technological, social or other benefits of the project outweigh its potentially unavoidable adverse environmental impacts. Prior to certification and adoption of the EIR, the City Council may amend the document. It should be noted, that removal of any of the recommended mitigation measures will require findings and justification. Strategic Plan Goal: The General Plan is a policy document that guides City decisions and use of the City’s resources through the year 2040. The goals and policies in the General Plan address a range of issues in the City and are intended to implement the community’s vision and guiding principles. As such, the goals and policies of the proposed General Plan Update align with all of the City’s identified strategic plan goals as follows: Improve quality of life; Enhance and maintain infrastructure; Strengthen economic and financial sustainability; Enhance and maintain public safety; and Enhance and maintain City service delivery. Attachment(s): 1. City Council Resolution No. 2017-40, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Certifying Program Environmental Impact Report No. 14-001 for General Plan Amendment No. 14-002 (General Plan Update) 2. City Council Resolution No. 2017-41, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Approving General Plan Amendment No. 14-002 for the General Plan Update 3. Public Hearing Draft General Plan Update, September 2017 – Only pages proposed to change from the May 2017 draft General Plan Update are attached 4. Final EIR – Chapters 8 through 11 of Volume II 5. CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations HB -631-Item 10. - 309 Dept. ID CD 17-011 Page 18 of 18 Meeting Date: 9/18/2017 6. Public Comments Received on the draft General Plan Update 7. General Plan Land Use Map (Figure LU-2 of the Land Use Element) 8. Planning Commission Staff Report, August 15, 2017 – Environmental Impact Report No. 14- 001 and General Plan Amendment No. 14-002 HB -632-Item 10. - 310 General Plan Update City Council Public Hearing September 18 2017 9/18/2017 General Plan Approach • Directed by City Council in March 2015 • Streamline the General Plan structure to meet minimum legal requirements • Condense the existing 16 elements into 9 • Technical analysis to address minimum state law and responsible agency requirements PO, ''juriv,u I fal COMMUNICATION 7 Meeting Date: ql/1/ Agenda Item No. F 1 HB -633-Item 10. - 311 Hazards Environmental Hazards 9/18/2017 Drat( General Plan • Released May 2017 • Complies with recent changes to state law • Provides consistency among elements • Updates background data to reflect changed conditions including 11 technical studies • Has been prepared based on input from community, task forces, GPAC, Planning Commission and City Council Existing 19% General Phan Community Development riu Urban Design Economic Development Historic and Cultural Growth Management MEE Infrastructure and Community Services [01=72 Public Facilities and Public Services Recreation and Community Services LO =PP Natural Resources Environmental Resources and Conservation El= LE= Hazardous Matenals IsWen kart: /erg 2 HB -634-Item 10. - 312 Planning Area City Limits (17,482 acres) Includes Sunset Beach and Brightwater annexations Sphere of Influence (1,489 acres) Includes Bolsa Chica Wetlands and Goodell property Planning Area (18,971 acres) 9/18/2017 Proposed General Plan Update Public Services and Infrastructure Land Use Circulation Environmental Resources and Conservation Natural and Environmental Hazards Noise Historic and Cultural Resources Coastal Housing 3 HB -635-Item 10. - 313 Distribution of Land Uses 1 8351 4.4% 4.1% 3,681.5 154% 18,911.8* 100% 110.2 9/18/2017 hand Use Map • Introduces a new Research and Technology land use designation in existing areas designated as Industrial • No change to existing residential designations • No change to existing residential densities • Denotes 15 existing adopted specific plans with a specific plan overlay suffix (---sp) • No changes to existing specific plans ar:••n •••nn •.. GM • =="... 2,1•••••=w1 Table LU-1 General Plan INstrIbuIlon of Land Uses Aties PesLeellame of (apprunmete) Plammo Alea Residential Low Density Medium Dentin). Medium High Density High Density Commended Neighborhood General Visitor Office Mixed Use Mixed Use induetrIel Research and Technology Industrial 011011Se500 and Recreational Conservation 1,661.9 8.8% Park 1011 31% Recreation 231.9 1.3% Water FiffereatOil 2313.7 1.3% Shore 434.3 2,3% .011.0,4,10 ...... 41.141, .1".1 VIVV• Public Public-Semipublic Rights-of-Way Total •Tolab may nut add up duetortandr.p Land Use Elesignifion 5,6532 294% 6,2% 5.5% 0.95% 1,184.8 1,047.5 160.7 90.9 048% 1,6% 0.9% 0.1% 298.9 165.7 16.3 837.9 3.4% 4712 2.5% 654.6 3.5% gog 071 =KM 4 HB -636-Item 10. - 314 9/18/2017 Distribution of Land Uses • Residential uses largest land use —42% of planning area — Single-family residential makes up approximately 70% of the residential land use category • Rights of way make up approximately 20% IMAM ri!): Development Capacity Draft General Plan Update Development Capacity Land Use Residential Uses (Dwelling Units) Non-Residential Uses (Square Feet) Existing (2014) 78,175 45,052,000 Proposed (2040)1 85,403 50,437,000 Net Difference 7,228 5,385,000 Note: 1. Some land uses identified as proposed at the time the land use inventory was completed in 2014 have recently been occupied or are currently under construction. miTg 5 HB -637-Item 10. - 315 9/18/2017 Development Capacity 1996 General Plan adopted buildout 1996 General Plan forecasted 2040 buildout General Plan Update 2040 buildout Residential Units 92,679 units 86,499 units 85,403 units Non-residential 79,790,420 s.f. 45,748,000 s.f. 50,437,000 Square feet The development capacity represents the realistic amount of development anticipated in the City based on the distribution of land uses reflected on the General Plan Land Use Map. The development capacity is not a target or goal for development of the City. Research and Technology • Proposed along Gothard Corridor and in northwest Industrial areas • Encourages employment uses and commercial uses designed to accommodate employees while continuing to allow traditional industrial uses such as manufacturing and production. • Provides a flexible platform for both industrial and commercial uses that do not fit into the City's historically commercial or industrial areas. Many new business types require this flexibility as they may need both commercial and industrial components to conduct business and grow a business. ..iiro11n11n1.— Im•on Ited 6 HB -638-Item 10. - 316 1.1640 tratmC,Awn ......••••11-am-stammi/m11 2.6 l• NO++ nrxi Chy al Haab nylon Peach General an 9/18/2017 Research and Technology • Goals and policies set the framework for the City to: — Recognize potential for growth in these areas — Support business retention and growth — Support and improve technology infrastructure to meet the needs of existing and potential future businesses — Encourage and assist existing and potential future property owners to update, modernize and expand their properties Provide incentives to retain, expand, and capture new businesses, including research and development industries and start-ups • The intent of the Research and Technology designation is not to limit existing uses, but to expand what existing and new uses can do within their space. Circulation Element Updated in 2013 Incorporates Complete Streets legislation Arterial Highway Plan • Identifies existing and proposed roadways • Identifies roadway classifications • Accommodates growth anticipated by the Draft General Plan, with recommended improvements 7 HB -639-Item 10. - 317 9/18/2017 Draft General Plan Update Elements Noise Element Describes how the City considers noise control in the planning process - Identifies existing and future noise conditions, noise sensitive land uses and sources of noise Environmental Resources and Conservation - Includes goals and policies relating to the preservation and maintenance of open space areas - Addresses air quality, water quality, greenhouse gas emissions, biological resources and mineral resources Public Services and Infrastructure — Includes policies that ensure adequate infrastructure and public services are in place to support anticipated growth Natural and Environmental Hazards — Addresses natural and man- made hazards — Also addresses coastal hazards, emergency preparedness and hazardous materials and waste taaCnIPp Draft Program EIR Impacts — EAR analyzes 15 topical impact areas — Significance of impacts based on established thresholds — In CEQA terms, impacts categorized as: • No impact • Less than significant • Less than significant with incorporation of mitigation measures • Potentially significant • Mitigation Measures — Mitigation Measures identified to reduce level of significance or minimize less than significant impacts — General Plan Update proposed to be self-mitigating via goals and policies • Significant and Unavoidable Impacts — potentially significant impacts that cannot be feasibly mitigated to a less than significant level 8 HB -640-Item 10. - 318 9/18/2017 Issues Analyzed in the Draft Program EIR • Aesthetics & Visual Resources • Air Quality • Biological Resources • Cultural Resources • Geology & Soils/Mineral Resources • Greenhouse Gas Emissions • Hazards & Hazardous Materials • Hydrology & Water Quality • Land Use & Planning • Noise & Vibration • Population, Housing & Employment • Public Services • Recreation • Traffic & Transportation • Utilities & Service Systems (including Energy) Significant and Unavoidable Impacts • Air Quality — Emissions estimates from individual projects difficult to quantify at this time — Cannot determine at programmatic level whether future projects would exceed SCAQMD emissions thresholds • Cultural Resources — Infeasible to determine whether future development would result in demolition or removal of historical, archeological and paleontological resources • Water Supply Urban Water Master Plan indicates that future water supplies could accommodate General Plan growth Uncertainty of water supply across California and the west — Future water supply deficit could occur 11611Z, 9 HB -641-Item 10. - 319 9/18/2017 Significant and Unavoidable Impacts Greenhouse Gas Emissions — Implementation of Greenhouse Gas Reduction Measures is currently optional; therefore, there is no certainty that emissions would be reduced to levels consistent with existing state laws and plans Noise — Vibration levels may exceed established thresholds during construction of future projects — Ambient noise levels would increase due to increases in roadway noise levels, some of which would exceed established thresholds ianin koLV,S,L, non Alternatives CEQA requires an EIR to identify and analyze a reasonable range of alternatives to the project that would: - Feasibly obtain most of the objectives of the project - Avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, as proposed The Draft Program EIR evaluated 3 Alternatives: • Alternative 1: No Project - Assumes continuation of 1996 General Plan - Required by CEQA • Alternative 2: Full Implementation of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program (GGRP Alternative) • Alternative 3: Gothard Corridor Land Use Change (Gothard Corridor Alternative) 10 HB -642-Item 10. - 320 9/18/2017 Final Program HR • Includes Draft Program EIR (made available for public review from May 22 through July 7) • Comments on the Draft Program EIR • Responses to comments on the Draft Program EIR • Text changes to the Draft Program EIR • Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Statement oi Overriding Considerations • If the lead agency determines that it is infeasible to mitigate a significant environmental impact, the agency must adopt a "statement of overriding considerations." — The lead agency finds that specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project outweigh the significant effects on the environment. 11 HB -643-Item 10. - 321 9/18/2017 Planning Commission Action • Planning Commission held a series of 5 study sessions once draft GPU and EIR were released — June 13 — June 27 — July 11 — July 25 — August 8 • On August 15, 2017 Planning Commission held a public hearing and unanimously recommended approval of the General Plan Update and Program EIR Recommendation - EIR • Recommend certification of Program EIR No. 14-001 because: - It adequately analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated with the General Plan Update — Identifies project alternatives pursuant to CEQA — Provides mitigation measures to lessen the project's impacts — Has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). DACRON Itick71P7, LIO!!! 12 HB -644-Item 10. - 322 9/18/2017 Recommendation — General Plan Update Recommend approval of General Plan Update (GPA No. 14-002) because: — Complies with state law related to requirements for General Plans; — Incorporates state legislation enacted since the previous (1996) General Plan was adopted; — Provides for consistency among the required elements; — Resolves an inconsistency between the Circulation Element and the Land Use Element; — Is consistent with the March 2015 City Council direction to streamline the General Plan and reduce the number of optional elements while still complying with state law; Recommendation General Plan Update • Recommend approval of General Plan Update (GPA No. 14-002) because: — Reflects the Community Vision and Guiding Principles as established by the GPAC based on community input; Provides for economic, social, and quality of life benefits that outweigh the adverse environmental effects of the Plan (SOC); Establishes a development capacity and policy framework for Huntington Beach over an approximate 25-year planning horizon (to 2040); and — Updates the goals and policies to ensure the General Plan remains a useful tool for the future in guiding City decisions regarding land use, the design and/or character of buildings and open spaces, the conservation of existing housing and the provision of new housing, the provision of supporting infrastructure and public services, the protection of environmental resources, the allocation of fiscal resources, and the protection of residents from natural and human- caused hazards. 13 HB -645-Item 10. - 323 9/18/20 17 Huntington Beachtim'MT4 14 HB -646-Item 10. - 324 Dept. ID CA 17-004 Page 1 of 2 Meeting Date: 10/2/2017 Statement of Issue: Upon direction of the City Council at the August 21, 2017, meeting, the composition of the Community Services Commission is to be changed from 13 members to seven members, with six additional members appointed by City Council to act in an advisory, non-voting capacity. Financial Impact: N/A Recommended Action Approve for introduction Ordinance No. 4141, “An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach Amending Chapter 2.64 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code Relating to the Community Services Commission.” Alternative Action(s): Do not adopt Ordinance No. 4141 “An Ordinance Amending Chapter 2.64 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code Relating to the Community Services Commission.” Analysis: The City Council has determined that the composition of the Community Services Commission should be changed from 13 members to seven members, with an additional six advisory, non-voting members. The six school districts in the City are each to appoint one advisory, non-voting member to be ratified by the City Council. Staff has included three additional draft versions of the Ordinance Amending Chapter 2.64 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code Relating to the Community Services Commission for additional consideration. One version eliminates district appointees; one version keeps six advisory members, but all are appointed by the City Council; one version allows each district to appoint an advisory member and eliminates the one-year term. Environmental Status: N/A Strategic Plan Goal: Non-Applicable – Administrative Item Attachment(s): 1. Version 1: Ordinance No. 4141, “An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach Amending Chapter 2.64 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code Relating to the Community Services Commission” CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR. CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 10/2/2017 SUBMITTED TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members SUBMITTED BY: Michael E. Gates, City Attorney PREPARED BY: Michael E. Gates, City Attorney SUBJECT: Approve for introduction Ordinance No. 4141 amending Huntington Beach Municipal Code Chapter 2.64 relating to the Community Services Commission HB -647-Item 11. - 1 Dept. ID CA 17-004 Page 2 of 2 Meeting Date: 10/2/2017 2. Version 2: Ordinance No. 4141, “An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach Amending Chapter 2.64 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code Relating to the Community Services Commission.” 3. Version 3. Ordinance No. 4141, “An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach Amending Chapter 2.64 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code Relating to the Community Services Commission.” 4. Version 4. Ordinance No. 4141, “An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach Amending Chapter 2.64 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code Relating to the Community Services Commission.” 5. Version 1. Legislative Draft 6. Version 2. Legislative Draft 7. Version 3. Legislative Draft 8. Version 4. Legislative Draft HB -648-Item 11. - 2 ORDINANCE NO. 4141 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING CHAPTER 2.64 OF THE HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSION The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1. Section 2.64.020 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 2.64.020 Composition The commission shall be composed of seven members with six advisory, non-voting members. SECTION 2. Section 2.64.040 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 2.64.040 One-Year Members The City Council shall appoint six advisory, non-voting members, one from each elementary, high school and public community college district having facilities within the City. Each district may recommend to the Council, on or before the third Monday in June of each year, one or more advisory, non-voting members, who are residents of the City of Huntington Beach, to represent their district as advisory, non-voting members. At least one of said advisory, non-voting members recommended by a district shall be appointed by the Council for a one-year term which will terminate on July 1 the following year. In the event that any district shall not make such recommendations to the Council by the first day of July, then the Council may appoint a qualified person to a one- year term to represent such school district on the commission. SECTION 3. This ordinance shall become effective 30 days after its adoption. 17-5985/I65723/mv/(1) HB -649-Item 11. - 3 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of , 2017. Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk City Attorney REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED: City Manager City Attorney 17-5985/165723/mv/(1) HB -650-Item 11. - 4 ORDINANCE NO. 4141 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING CHAPTER 2.64 OF THE HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSION The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION I. Section 2.64,020 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 2.64.020 Composition The commission shall be composed of seven members. SECTION 2. Section 2.64.040 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 2.64.040 One-Year Members [DELETED] SECTION 3. This ordinance shall become effective 30 days after its adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of , 2017. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk REVIEWED AND APPROVED: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney INITIATED AND APPROVED: City Manager City Attorney 17-5985/165725/mv/(2) HB -651-Item 11. - 5 ORDINANCE NO. 4141 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING CHAPTER 2.64 OF THE HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSION The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1. Section 2.64.020 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 2.64.020 Composition The commission shall be composed of seven members with six advisory, non-voting members. SECTION 2. Section 2.64.025 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 2.64.025 Appointment Each member of the City Council shall appoint one member to the Community Services Commission for a four-year term. City Council shall appoint six advisory, non-voting members who are residents of the City of Huntington Beach for terms of one year. SECTION 3. Section 2.64.040 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 2.64.040 One-Year Members [DELETED] SECTION 4. This ordinance shall become effective 30 days after its adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of , 2017. Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk City Attorney REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED: City Manager City Attorney 17-5985/165728/mv/(3) HB -652-Item 11. - 6 City Manager 17-5985/165924/mv/(4) City Attorney ORDINANCE NO. 4141 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING CHAPTER 2.64 OF THE HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSION The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1. Section 2.64.020 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 2.64.020 Composition The commission shall be composed of seven members with six advisory, non-voting members. SECTION 2. Section 2.64.025 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 2.64.025 Appointment Each elementary, high school and public community college district having facilities within the City (6) may appoint one member to serve as an advisory, non-voting representative at each district's discretion. SECTION 3. Section 2.64.040 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 2.64.040 One-Year Members [DELETED] SECTION 4. This ordinance shall become effective 30 days after its adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of , 2017. Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk City Attorney REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED: HB -653-Item 11. - 7 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT HBMC CHAPTER 2.64 SECTIONS 2.64.020 AND 2.64.240 Chapter 2.64 COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSION 2.64.020 Composition The commission shall be composed of 4-seven members with six advisory, non-voting members. (803-12/60, 1113-7/65, 1300-3/67, 3983-1/14) 2.64.040 One-Year Members The City Council shall appoint six adviso non-votin members for terms of one yearone from- beach elementary, high school and public community college district having facilities within the City. Each district may recommend to the Council, on or before the third Monday in June of each year, ty.4eone or more person5advisory, non-voting members, who are residents of the City of Huntington Beach, to represent their district as advisory, non-voting members. At least oOne of said persensadvisory, non-voting members recommended by a school district shall be appointed by the Council for a one-year term which will terminate on July 1 the following year. In the event that any district shall not make such recommendations to the Council by the first day of July, then the Council may appoint sornea qualified person to a one-year term to represent such school district on the commission. (1113-7/65, 1300-3/67, 2383-7/79, 2389-9/79, 3723-12/05, 3983- 1/14) 17-5985/165724/mv/(1) HB -654-Item 11. - 8 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT HBMC CHAPTER 2.64 SECTIONS 2.64.020 AND 2.64.240 Chapter 2.64 COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSION 2.64.020 Composition The commission shall be composed of 43-seven members. (803-12/60, 1113-7/65, 1300-3/67, 3983-1/14) 2.64.040 One-Year Members the City of Huntington Beach, to represent their district. One of said persons shall be appointed that any district shall not make such recommendations to the Council by the first day of July, then BEl-laer-se Flee district on the commission. (1113-7/65, 1300-3/67, 2383-7/79, 2389-9/79, 3723-12/05, 3983- 1/14) 17-5985/165724/mv/(2) HB -655-Item 11. - 9 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT HBMC CHAPTER 2.64 SECTIONS 2.64.020 AND 2.64.240 Chapter 2.64 COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSION 2.64.020 Composition The commission shall be composed of 4-3seven members_willt six advisory, non-voting members. (803-12/60, 1113-7/65, 1300-3/67, 3983-1/14) 2.64.025 Appointment Each member of the City Council shall appoint one member to the Community Services Commission for a four-year tem'. (3983-1/14) City Council shall appoint six advisory, non- voting members who are residents of the City of Huntington Beach for terms of one year. 2.64.040 One-Year Members B-ad Fief) 5g-e-42 EC-0-1-11141€ Council, on or before the third Monday in June of each year, two or mo cif Huntington Beach, to Fie district. One of said terse a-tne 13efftte€ aav-e 9 the Council may appoint some qualified person to a one year term to represent such school district on the commission. (1113-7/65, 1300-3/67, 2383-7/79, 2389-9/79, 3723-12/05, 3983- 1/14) 17-5695/165729/mv/(3) HB -656-Item 11. - 10 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT HBMC CHAPTER 2.64 SECTIONS 2.64.020 AND 2.64.240 Chapter 2.64 COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSION 2.64.020 Composition The commission shall be composed of 4-3-seven members with six advisory non-voting members. (803-12/60, 1113-7/65, 1300-3/67, 3983-1/14) 2.64.025 Appointment Commission for a four year term. (3983-1/14) Each elementary, high school and public communitycaege district having facilities within the City (6) may appoint one member to serve as an advisory, non-voting representative at each district's discretion. 2.64,040 One-Year Members The City Council shall appoint six members, for terms of one year. Each elementary, high school and public community college district having facilities within the City may recommend to the y in June of each year, two or more persons, residents of ington Beach, to represent their district. One of said persons shall be appointed by the Council for a one year term which will terminate on July 1 the following year. In the event that any district shall not make such recommendations to the Council by the first day of July, then the Council may appoint some qualified person to a one year term to represent such school district on the commission. (1113-7/65, 1300-3/67, 2383-7/79, 2389-9/79, 3723-12/05, 3983- 1/14) 17-5695/165729/mv/(3) HB -657-Item 11. - 11 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH City Council Interoffice Communication To: From: Date: Subject: Honorable City Council Members Billy O'Connell, Council Member October 2, 2017 CITY COUNCIL MEMBER ITEM FOR THE OCTOBER 2, 2017 CITY COUNCIL MEETING — CONSIDER ESTABLISHING A CITY COUNCIL AD HOC COMMITTEE ON COASTAL AREA ODORS STATEMENT OF ISSUE: At the September 18, 2017 City Council meeting, residents expressed concern about odors in the community. While the South Coast Air Quality Management District is the lead agency for air quality, there is not enough progress being made to address the source of the odor. in order to adequately address the concerns brought forth by residents both in-person and online the City should work internally to create a strategy to working with regulatory agencies to search for the cause of the odor and to collaboratively work on solutions to mitigate the odor. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Mayor to establish a City Council Ad Hoc Committee to work with key stakeholders to formulate a Coastal Area Odors workplan for the Council's further review and action. xc: Fred Wilson, City Manager Lori Ann Farrell Harrison, Assistant City Manager Robin Estanislau, City Clerk Michael Gates, City Attorney HB -658-Item 12. - 1